Opinion ID: 672016
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 4 The Toro Company holds patent number 4,634,052 for a specific type of rotary sprinkler head used in yard sprinkler systems. In October of 1992, Toro discovered that Rain Bird was marketing a yard sprinkler which appeared to be similar to the sprinkler Toro had patented. As a result, Toro sent a letter to Rain Bird advising Rain Bird that its product constituted an infringement of Toro's patent. 5 In response to that letter, Rain Bird filed a declaratory judgment action against Toro in the district court seeking a declaration that Rain Bird's sprinkler did not infringe Toro's patent. Toro then filed a counterclaim for infringement against Rain Bird. 6 Toro's patent is for a rotary type lawn sprinkler that has a nozzle assembly which allows the user to adjust the arc of the spray by pushing down and turning the nozzle assembly. The claims of the Toro patent are written in means-plus-function form as authorized by 35 U.S.C. Sec. 112 p 6, and are directed to the function of adjusting the arc by the means set forth in the specification and equivalents thereof. The district court determined that the means used by Rain Bird for accomplishing arc adjustment in its sprinklers was not of the same or equivalent structure to that shown in Toro's patent. The district court held that there was no patent infringement. 7 U.S. District Judge John G. Davies entered a detailed order explaining his conclusion that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to patent infringement. Rain Bird admits that its product performs the same function as the Toro sprinkler in making adjustments to the arc of the water spray. However, Judge Davies found that on the undisputed technological facts Rain Bird's design accomplishes that function in a different manner. 8 The district court first determined that there was no literal infringement of the Toro patent, since the claims of the Toro patent did not read on the arc adjustment method of Rain Bird. The district court then examined the Rain Bird product to determine whether it infringed the Toro patent under the doctrine of equivalents. The district court also looked at prior art or previously existing sprinkler devices and found that the Rain Bird arc adjustment method was in the prior art. Thus, the district court correctly held that the Rain Bird design could not be the equivalent of the claimed Toro design. Consequently, the district court held that the Rain Bird sprinkler did not infringe the Toro patent claims, and the court entered judgment for Rain Bird.