Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co.
750 F. Supp. 2d 938
N.D. Ill.2010Background
- Krippelz owns U.S. Patent No. 5,017,903 for puddle lamps and sues Ford for infringement of claim 2.
- Jury verdict in December 2008 awarded Krippelz $23,000,000 in damages; a bench trial later found Ford’s infringement willful and awarded additional damages and prejudgment interest.
- Ford moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial; the court denied both.
- The court outlined JMOL, anticipation/obviousness, and new-trial standards and applied them to Ford’s challenges.
- The court concluded Ford’s JMOL motion was denied and Ford’s new-trial motions were denied; ruling as to other defenses followed in Section III.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anticipation of claim 2 by DuBois | Krippelz’s claim 2 is not anticipated by DuBois | Ford contends DuBois discloses all claim elements | No clear and convincing anticipation by DuBois; rational fact findings supported non-anticipation. |
| Obviousness of claim 2 over DuBois (and Miazzo) | DuBois/Miazzo do not render claim 2 obvious | Prior art teaches modification rendering claim obvious | DuBois teaches away; substantial evidence supports non-obviousness; Miazzo excluded but did not render obvious. |
| New-trial grounds based on jury instructions/constructions | N/A | Ford seeks new trial on several grounds including instructions and constructions | Court denied new-trial on multiple grounds; instructions and constructions were deemed proper overall. |
| Exclusion of file history and its impact on validity | N/A | Ford seeks to read file history to prove obviousness | Exclusion proper; no basis for new trial on this ground. |
Key Cases Cited
- KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (obviousness framework; need not show exact prior-art disclosure of all elements)
- McRoberts Software, Inc. v. Media 100, Inc., 329 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 2003) (JMOL requires near-one conclusion from evidence; credibility weighed by jury)
- Z4 Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 507 F.3d 1340 (Fed.Cir.2007) (JMOL and standard of review in patent cases)
- Simmons Fastener Corp. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 739 F.2d 1573 (Fed.Cir.1984) (commercial success as a secondary consideration; nexus considerations)
- Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984 (Fed.Cir.2009) (discusses secondary considerations and obviousness)
- Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340 (Fed.Cir.2009) (patent-law principles; jury instructions on patent issues)
- Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F.3d 683 (Fed.Cir.2008) (review of jury instructions in patent cases)