Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.
707 F.3d 1318
Fed. Cir.2013Background
- Accent appeals district court summary judgment of noninfringement for Leggett on the ’877 and ’992 patents; district court construed “each” and “a respective one” to require four elongated operator bodies and found no infringement; Pinnacle device features only two elongate bodies and a removable CORE module; SafeLatch stop allegedly affects the 90-degree pivot limitation in the ’992 and ’877 patents; MUTSA trade secret claim dismissed; district court denied Accent’s Rule 56(d) discovery request; both patents share a nearly identical specification and relate to a wire tier device with a knotter, gripper, cutter, and cover; Accent’s accused device purportedly embodies the claimed elements but with differences in their arrangement and embodiment; appeal challenges claim construction and infringement theory on four-arm limitation and 90-degree pivot limitation; appellate court reviews de novo and addresses Rule 56(d) standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plain meaning of ‘each’ and ‘a respective one’ | Accent: four arms not required; two arms can perform multiple functions | Leggett: four arms required; each arm linked to one element | Reversed-in-part: claim construction not limited to four arms |
| Infringement under 90-degree arc limitation | Accent: SafeLatch stop permits 90-degree pivot; removable stop not dispositive | Leggett: SafeLatch stop part of device; removal not infringing | Affirmed-in-part: device cannot pivot through 90 degrees due to SafeLatch stop; noninfringement on the ’992 and related claims |
| Rule 56(d) discovery ruling | Accent: further discovery would reveal customer devices and usage | District court properly denied; discovery would not raise genuine issues | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion in denying discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim construction guidance; intrinsic evidence is primary)
- On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GMBH, 386 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (avoid limiting claims to preferred embodiments)
- Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (‘a’ or ‘an’ means ‘one or more’ absent clear intent to limit)
- Raby v. Livingston, 600 F.3d 552 (5th Cir. 2010) (Rule 56(d) standards for discovery and opposition to summary judgment)
- Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1989) (public disclosure of trade secrets via public domain products)