Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221

Powell sued Home Depot for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,044,039 covering radial arm saw guards used in Home Depot stores.
A fourteen-day jury trial found Home Depot literally and willfully infringed the '039 patent and awarded damages, with enhanced damages and attorney fees awarded later.
The district court conducted a bench trial on unenforceability and concluded Powell did not commit inequitable conduct and denied unenforceability.
Home Depot challenged infringement, willfulness, damages, claim construction, inequitable conduct, and attorney fees on appeal.
Powell cross-appealed conditionally for enhanced damages if the damages were reduced, and the court ultimately affirmed enhanced damages and fees.
The accused device allegedly uses a cutting box that houses the blade and generates dust; the district court construed dust collection structure and table top for purposes of infringement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Dust collection structure means-plus-function status	Powell argues dust collection structure is structural, not means-plus-function.	Home Depot contends initial means-plus-function status requires a reversed construction.	Dust collection structure is not a means-plus-function element.
Infringement under the dust collection structure construction	Powell's device meets the revised dust collection structure by having a rear cutting box portion with a port for dust removal.	Home Depot argues separate	Substantial evidence supports infringement under the adopted construction.
Table top construction	Table top is a structural component that hosts a work surface mounted to it; no extra functional limitation is required.	Table top must function as a horizontal work surface supporting lumber during cutting.	District court's table top construction adopted; no extra functional limitation.
Inequitable conduct	Powell argues the Therasense standard does not apply retroactively to retroactively invalidate; no inequitable conduct proven.	Home Depot asserts failure to update Petition to Make Special was material and intentional.	Under Therasense, no clear and convincing evidence of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct.
Willful infringement	Powell contends objective prong met; evidence supports willfulness.	Home Depot argues lack of objective recklessness given challenged constructions and defenses.	Objective prong met; jury’s willfulness finding affirmed.

Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (intrinsic evidence supports interpretation of terms)
Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, 616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (distinguishes separate elements when claim lists them separately)
Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (claims and specification may show capable of single structure serving multiple functions)
Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 355 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (royalty calculation framework and non-binding limits on royalty)
Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (use of the Georgia-Pacific factors for reasonable royalty analysis)
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc standard for inequitable conduct requiring materiality and intent)
Seagate Technology, LLC v. Inров., 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (two-pronged test for willful infringement (objective and subjective))
DePuy Spine Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (objective prong as predicate to subjective prong in willfulness analysis)
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (separate analysis of objective and subjective prongs)
i4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (willfulness standard and substantial evidence review)