Lifetime Industries, Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc.
869 F.3d 1372
Fed. Cir.2017Background
- Lifetime owns U.S. Patent No. 6,966,590 covering a two‑part resilient seal for RVs with slide‑out rooms (a mounting portion and a separate bulb portion that engages the slide‑out flange).
- In 2013 Lifetime sued Trim‑Lok for direct and indirect infringement, alleging Trim‑Lok offered and installed a two‑part seal described by the patent.
- Lifetime alleged two former Lifetime engineers with knowledge of the patent joined Trim‑Lok shortly before Trim‑Lok began offering the two‑part seal; a Lifetime representative found a Trim‑Lok two‑part seal installed on a Forest River RV in June 2013.
- Lifetime’s second amended complaint (filed Oct. 2014) alleged that a Trim‑Lok agent installed the seal on the Forest River RV (direct infringement), and alternatively that Trim‑Lok induced or contributed to Forest River’s infringement by assisting or directing installation (indirect infringement).
- The district court dismissed for failure to plead direct and indirect infringement plausibly; Lifetime appealed. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pleading standard (Form 18 vs Iqbal/Twombly) | SAC filed while Form 18 was in effect, so Form 18 should protect the pleading; alternatively SAC meets Iqbal/Twombly | Supreme Court abrogated Form 18 and it should apply to pending cases; SAC fails under Iqbal/Twombly | Court did not decide a conflict; found SAC met Iqbal/Twombly anyway and survived dismissal |
| Direct infringement (making the claimed combination) | Alleged Trim‑Lok agent installed Trim‑Lok seal on an RV at Forest River, so Trim‑Lok made the infringing seal‑RV combination | Trim‑Lok only makes seals; claims require seal+RV combination so allegation is speculative and insufficient | Complaint plausibly alleged that Trim‑Lok created the infringing combination by installing the seal; direct infringement claim survives |
| Induced infringement (specific intent and knowledge) | Former employees gave Trim‑Lok knowledge of the patent and scope before the installation; Trim‑Lok then assisted or directed installation of the patented seal | Allegations show knowledge of patent but not specific intent to cause infringement; could have designed around the patent | Allegations—knowledge via hires, timing, discovery of installed accused product, and lack of prior sales—plausibly support intent to induce; induced infringement claim survives |
| Contributory infringement (knowledge vs intent; non‑staple use) | Alleged Trim‑Lok knew of the patent, sold a component adapted for infringing use, and the seals lack substantial noninfringing use | Trim‑Lok contends contributory infringement requires intent or that knowledge of infringement is not sufficiently pleaded | Contributory infringement requires knowledge of the patent and infringement (not intent); Lifetime plausibly pleaded knowledge and that seals are especially adapted with no substantial noninfringing use; claim survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920 (2015) (direct infringement is a strict‑liability offense; intent not required)
- Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (pleading need only place defendant on notice and may survive without proving the case)
- K‑Tech Telecomms., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 714 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (Form 18 historically insulated pleadings and notice pleading requirement explained)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility and pleading threshold)
- Siemens Med. Sols. USA, Inc. v. Saint‑Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc., 637 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (making/assembling can constitute infringement)
- Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson Co., 438 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (attachment by either party creates an infringing combination)
- Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (surgeons may infringe by making the claimed apparatus during surgery)
- Superior Indus., LLC v. Thor Glob. Enters., Ltd., 700 F.3d 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Iqbal/Twombly applies to indirect infringement allegations)
- Hewlett‑Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (contributory infringement requires knowledge, not intent)