Hefter Impact Technologies, LLC v. Sport Maska, Inc.
1:15-cv-13290
D. Mass.Aug 3, 2017Background
- In 2005 Hefter Impact Technologies, LLC assigned a hockey-helmet shell design to Sport Maska, Inc. (d/b/a Reebok–CCM Hockey) under a contract that provided a lump-sum payment plus royalties on sales of any “Product.”
- The Agreement defines “Product” as “a hockey helmet that incorporates the Shell Design,” and “Shell Design” as the schematic design or “any shell derived therefrom and substantially similar thereto.”
- Plaintiff alleges Sport Maska failed to pay royalties on three disputed helmet lines (Resistance, FitLite, HT11K) that allegedly incorporate the Hefter Shell Design.
- Both parties moved for summary judgment: Sport Maska argued the disputed helmets are not “Products”; Hefter sought a declaratory ruling that Product includes a helmet even if only 30% of the shell design is based on the Hefter design and that Massachusetts contract principles govern construction.
- Sport Maska also moved to strike plaintiff’s retained expert Roger Ball, arguing his methodology was unreliable.
- The Court denied both parties’ summary-judgment motions and denied the motion to strike Ball, holding the contract language ambiguous such that royalty liability is a jury question and Ball’s methodological criticisms go to weight, not admissibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “Product” includes the disputed helmets | “Product” covers a helmet even if only ~30% of shell design derives from Hefter design; course of performance supports a bright-line rule | Disputed helmets do not incorporate the Hefter Shell Design and thus are not "Products" entitled to royalties | Term “Product” is ambiguous; whether disputed helmets are "derived from and substantially similar" is a question of fact for the jury; summary judgment denied to both parties |
| Whether contract interpretation is for court or jury | Contract should be interpreted under standard Massachusetts contract law by the court | Ambiguity requires factual determination by jury | Court found the critical term ambiguous; meaning is a jury question after considering extrinsic evidence |
| Whether principles of patent/copyright/trade-dress law govern contract interpretation | Contract should be construed by standard contract principles without regard to IP doctrines | (Defendant did not argue IP law applies) | Court declined to decide at summary judgment whether IP doctrines are irrelevant; Hefter’s declaratory request denied without prejudice |
| Admissibility of expert Roger Ball’s testimony | Ball’s analysis identifies design derivation and is reliable and helpful | Ball failed to rule out independent design or derivation from other shells; methodology unreliable | Motion to strike denied; Court treated criticisms as challenges to weight, not admissibility under Rule 702/Daubert |
Key Cases Cited
- Mesnick v. General Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816 (1st Cir.) (summary judgment standard and role of court)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S.) (nonmoving party must present affirmative evidence to defeat summary judgment)
- Nadherny v. Roseland Prop. Co., Inc., 390 F.3d 44 (1st Cir.) (contract interpretation is ordinarily a question of law; ambiguity may create a fact question)
- Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc. v. Casella Waste Mgmt. of Mass., Inc., 79 Mass. App. Ct. 300 (Mass. App. Ct.) (if ambiguous, contract meaning is a fact question and extrinsic evidence may be consulted)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S.) (trial judge’s gatekeeping role for expert admissibility)
- Bogosian v. Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., Inc., 104 F.3d 472 (1st Cir.) (requirements for admissibility of expert testimony)