Cinclips, LLC v. Z Keepers, LLC
8:16-cv-01067
M.D. Fla.Aug 24, 2017Background
- Cinclips owns U.S. Patent 9,133,609 for a one-piece mounting driver to undermount a sink, and sues Z Keepers for infringement.
- Z Keepers asserts a different design and argues the patent is obvious in light of prior art, including a wood furring strip.
- The court conducts claim construction, resolving eight disputed terms; it adopts Cinclips’ proposed constructions except for one term, 'distal end'.
- The court provides detailed analysis of the disputed claim terms, including 'distal end', 'second end of the support bar', and 'screw holes', to fix the claim scope.
- Cinclips moves for summary judgment of infringement; Z Keepers resists, arguing noninfringement and that the patent is obvious over prior art.
- The court denies Cinclips’ motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding obviousness and infringement, and also denies Cinclips’ motion to strike Z Keepers’ supplemental authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Obviousness of the ‘609 patent over prior art | Cinclips contends prior art does not make it obvious. | Z Keepers argues a wood furring strip and routine design changes render it obvious under KSR. | Disputed; summary judgment denied. |
| Literal infringement of claims 8/16 by Z Keepers | Cinclips asserts Z Keepers’ product infridges the claims as construed. | Z Keepers argues the accused product lacks the claimed features (beam, holes, etc.). | Disputed; summary judgment denied. |
| Infringement under doctrine of equivalents | Cinclips argues equivalent performance of screw holes and structure. | Z Keepers contends different structure and function; no equivalent. | Disputed; summary judgment denied. |
| Proper claim construction of disputed terms | Cinclips seeks its preferred constructions for several terms. | Z Keepers proposes alternative constructions that would broaden/alter scope. | Court adopts Cinclips’ construction for all terms except 'distal end'. |
| Motion to strike supplemental authority | Cinclips seeks to strike Z Keepers’ supplemental authority as improper. | Z Keepers argues authority was properly cited. | Denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2007) (obviousness standard; invention may be obvious via predictable solutions)
- Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (U.S. Supreme Court 2014) (indefiniteness standard: reasonable certainty in scope with reference to the specification)
- Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 783 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (remand clarifies reasonable certainty for claim terms like ‘spaced relationship’)
- Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (absolute precision not required for claim scope)
- Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claim scope defined by the language of the claims and specification)
- Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prod. Co., 339 U.S. 605 (U.S. 1950) (defining test for equivalence in infringement analysis)