591 F.Supp.3d 125
S.D. Miss.2022Background
- Plaintiffs BNJ Leasing, Inc. (owner) and MRB Enterprise (applicant/assignor) hold U.S. Patent No. 10,232,782 for a "mobile refueling vessel" (tank on wheels with ladder/platform and either side pump or swiveling boom).
- Defendant Portabull sells a mobile refueling tank called the "Taurus," accused of infringing the patent. Claim construction was issued March 23, 2021.
- Key factual contests concern: alleged non-infringing alternatives (design by Defendant’s expert Fred Smith and H&H Welding work), expert testimony on damages and infringement, a claimed 2013 H&H design as prior art, and whether Plaintiffs committed inequitable conduct (unclean hands/non‑disclosure of prior use or sale).
- Motions resolved: Plaintiffs moved to exclude certain evidence of non-infringing alternatives; Defendant moved for summary judgment and Daubert relief; Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on inequitable conduct and partial summary judgment that a 2013 H&H offer is not prior art.
- The court conducted Rule 26/37 and Rule 702/Daubert analyses for expert disclosure and reliability, evaluated means-plus-function and doctrine-of-equivalents issues for the "deck access device," and applied §102 on-sale/public-availability and inequitable-conduct standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclude testimony on alleged non-infringing alternatives (Fred Smith) | Smith’s alternative was untimely disclosed and unreliable | Opinions untimely; should be excluded under Rule 26/37 and Daubert | Denied — untimeliness was harmless; Smith’s opinions not wholly unreliable under Rule 702 and admissible (issues for cross-exam) |
| Exclude plaintiffs’ experts / Daubert on damages and infringement (Wacek, Klopp) | N/A (Defendant sought exclusion) | Wacek allegedly relied on Klopp without foundation; Klopp raised late doctrine-of-equivalents theory and allegedly misstates law on obviousness | Denied — Wacek and Klopp admissible; timeliness and methodological criticisms go to weight, not exclusion; doctrine-of-equivalents testimony permitted (no substantial prejudice) |
| Literal infringement / means‑plus‑function "deck access device" (direction ladder folds) | Plaintiffs (Klopp) say accused product performs identical function in same way/result — literal or equivalent | Defendant argues ladder folds differently (parallel vs perpendicular) so no corresponding structure/infringement | Denied summary judgment for Defendant — genuine dispute exists on whether accused structure corresponds to claimed means-plus-function element or infringes under doctrine of equivalents |
| Inequitable conduct / unclean hands (Beard’s prior dealings, Wichita Tank 2013) | Plaintiffs: no concealment of material prior public use; no fraud | Defendant: Beard failed to disclose prior public use/sale of a 2013 tank; non-compete breaches show inequitable conduct | Granted Plaintiffs’ summary judgment — Defendant failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence any material, knowing nondisclosure or immediate relation to this litigation |
| 2013 H&H design as prior art (on-sale or otherwise available to public) | Plaintiffs: H&H 2013 design was confidential/not publicly available and lacked a rear fuel dispenser (a claim element) | Defendant: 2013 H&H design (or offer) predates filing and is on-sale/available to public | Partial summary judgment for Plaintiffs — court finds genuine disputes and insufficient evidence that 2013 H&H design was on sale or otherwise publicly available; on-sale bar inapplicable due to missing claimed fuel-dispenser element |
Key Cases Cited
- Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE‑USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir.) (non‑infringing alternatives in lost‑profits analysis)
- Georgetown Rail Equip. Co. v. Holland L.P., 867 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir.) (burden shift on lost profits and non‑infringing substitutes)
- Micro Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, Inc., 318 F.3d 1119 (Fed. Cir.) (lost‑profits burden shifting)
- Sierra Club v. Cedar Point Oil Co., 73 F.3d 546 (5th Cir.) (factors for Rule 37 exclusion analysis)
- Betzel v. State Farm Lloyds, 480 F.3d 704 (5th Cir.) (untimely disclosure prejudice analysis)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (court’s gatekeeper role for expert admissibility)
- GE v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997) (court may exclude ipse dixit expert conclusions)
- KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (flexible obviousness/motivation‑to‑combine analysis)
- Warner‑Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997) (doctrine of equivalents framework)
- O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir.) (exclusion of late infringement contentions under Rule 37)
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 628 (2019) (on‑sale bar requires commercial offer and readiness for patenting)
- In re Enhanced Sec. Research, LLC, 739 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir.) ("otherwise available to the public" scope)
- Poly‑America, L.P. v. GSE Lining Tech., Inc., 383 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.) (presumption of patent validity)
- Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., 888 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir.) (unclean hands/inventor misconduct context)