Opinion ID: 775530
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Procedural History of Litigation

Text: 26 On March 12, 1998, Superior filed a complaint against Majestic for infringement of the '534 patent. At some time after this, Majestic pointed out that the second limitation of claim 1 recited rear walls. Superior then proceeded to apply for a certificate of correction from the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), seeking to change the claim term from rear walls to rear wall. 27 Superior's first request was filed on February 16, 1999, under 35 U.S.C. 254, which applies only to the correction of mistakes made by the PTO. The PTO denied this request, stating in part that the patent is printed in accordance with the record in the Patent and Trademark Office of the application as passed to issue by the examiner. Superior then filed a request under 35 U.S.C. 255, which applies only to the correction of mistakes made by the applicant. The PTO granted this request, issuing a certificate of correction on August 17, 1999. We note that both requests were filed and the certificate was granted less than two years after the '534 patent issued. Accordingly, Superior was within the two-year window for broadening reissues under 35 U.S.C. 251, had it elected to pursue that route. 28 The parties filed summary judgment motions and the district court determined that the certificate of correction issued by the PTO was invalid. The district court then construed the original claim language, with the term rear walls, to require at least two walls. The district court found, and it is not disputed on appeal, that both parties agreed that the accused devices do not contain more than one rear wall and that there can be no literal infringement if the claim is construed to require two or more rear walls. Opinion, 92 F.Supp.2d at 1009. The district court further found that Superior had not offered one shred of evidence, ha[d] cited to no authority, presented no facts, and ha[d] made virtually no argument to support recovery under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE). Id. at 1011. Accordingly, the district court determined that there was no infringement under the DOE. Neither of the noninfringement findings are directly challenged on appeal, nor is the construction of the uncorrected claim. Thus, if we affirm the district court's decision that the certificate is invalid, then noninfringement must follow. 29 In the course of its proceedings, the district court refused to admit as evidence two documents proffered by Superior. The first document was a declaration by Superior's patent attorney, Marantidis, alleging that the examiner admitted that the change from rear wall to rear walls was a typographical error made by the examiner. The district court refused the Marantidis declaration on the ground that it was hearsay. Id. at 1009 n.4. 30 The second document was Superior's marked-up version of the faxed, edited claim. This document was proffered as an exhibit to a declaration of Nelson, an attorney at the same firm as Marantidis. The district court refused to admit the facsimile for lack of foundation. Id. 31 Majestic submitted a motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. 285. The district court, without oral argument and without issuing an opinion, concluded,[a]fter careful consideration, . . . that the instant case is not an 'exceptional case' as contemplated by the statute, and denied the motion. Superior Fireplace Co. v. Majestic Prods. Co., No. CV-98-1816 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2000) (civil minutes) (Denial of Attorney Fees). 32 After the summary judgment decision, Superior became aware of a PTO questionnaire entitled Notice Re: Certificates of Correction, prepared by the PTO in connection with the grant of the certificate of correction under 35 U.S.C. 255 and 37 C.F.R. 1.323. The questionnaire is dated June 29, 1999 and is included in the prosecution history. However, Superior avers that it did not become aware of the questionnaire until after the summary judgment decision, presumably because it obtained a copy of the prosecution history before the questionnaire had been prepared. 33 The questionnaire is a form, and the substantive content consists of six boxes that are checked, three indicating questions requiring a response from an examiner, and three more indicating the yes/no answers provided by the examiner. The first question and answer affirm that the change requested would not constitute new matter or require reexamination. The second question and answer affirm that the change requested would not materially affect the scope or meaning of the claims allowed. The third question and answer affirm that the patent should read as shown in the certificate of correction. 34 Based on the questionnaire, Superior filed a motion to amend judgment or for reconsideration. Superior alleged that the questionnaire showed that the district court erred, or that the questionnaire at least raised a genuine issue of material fact, regarding whether the change to rear walls was a typographical error or of minor character. The district court denied the motion, stating that even if obtained with due diligence, [the questionnaire] does not add any new or different information from what was already known from the Certificate of Correction, and that the questionnaire did not contradict any of the Court's conclusions. Superior Fireplace Co. v. Majestic Prods. Co., No. CV-98-1816 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2000) (civil minutes) (Denial of Reconsideration). 35 Superior appeals the invalidity holding, the evidentiary refusals, and the denial of its motion to amend judgment or for reconsideration. Majestic cross appeals the finding that this was not an exceptional case and the decision not to award attorney fees. We have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the issues appealed. 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(1) (1994).