Smith v. Garlock Equipment Company, 658 F. App'x 1017

Patent: U.S. Patent No. 8,240,431 claims a fall-arresting device with an arrestor arm that is "shiftable" (construed as "pivot") and, in claim 1, a tether connected to the arm. Claim 5 requires an internal cable that "causes the arm to shift to the lowered position."
Accused products: Garlock’s Multi-Man (arm slides linearly in a guide driven by a pulley) and Twin-Man (smaller unit) allegedly perform the patented functions.
District court proceedings: After claim construction ("shift" = "pivot"), the jury found Multi-Man infringed claim 5 and Twin-Man infringed claim 1; awarded lost profits and royalties; district court denied JMOL motions and entered an injunction.
Appeal issues: Garlock moved for JMOL of noninfringement (arguing Multi-Man’s arm does not pivot and Twin-Man was not sold/offered with a tether); appealed denial of JMOL and the injunction.
Federal Circuit holding: Reversed denial of JMOL — Multi-Man does not infringe claim 5 (arm does not pivot); Twin-Man does not infringe claim 1 (no competent evidence Garlock sold/offered it with a tether). Damages award and injunction vacated.

Issue	Smith's Argument	Garlock's Argument	Held
Whether Multi-Man meets claim 5 limitation that "the force causes the arm to shift (pivot) to the lowered position"	Multi-Man satisfied the claim because pivotal motion in the arrestor assembly (via a pulley) is involved and expert said that pivoting of the assembly satisfies the arm pivot requirement	The claim requires the arrestor arm itself to pivot; Multi-Man’s arm only slides linearly and does not pivot	JMOL granted for Garlock — no evidence the arm itself pivots; Multi-Man does not infringe claim 5
Whether Twin-Man meets claim 1 tether limitation (sold or offered with a tether by Garlock)	Evidence showed Twin-Man was depicted with a tether in marketing/materials and that distributors sold units with tether; expert testified advertisement and manual show tether usage	Garlock did not itself sell tethered units; advertisement was solicitation not an offer; no invoices or veil-piercing evidence to impute sister-company sales to Garlock	JMOL granted for Garlock — no competent evidence Garlock sold or offered Twin-Man with a tether; Twin-Man does not infringe claim 1

Sulzer Textil A.G. v. Picanol N.V., 358 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of review for JMOL/nonpatent issues)
Shaw Group, Inc. v. Marcum, 516 F.3d 1061 (8th Cir.) (Eighth Circuit reviews JMOL de novo; standard for setting aside jury verdict)
Research Plastics, Inc. v. Fed. Packaging Corp., 421 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir.) (literal infringement requires each claim limitation)
Johns Hopkins Univ. v. Datascope Corp., 543 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir.) (expert testimony that fails to show a claim limitation cannot supply substantial evidence of infringement)
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 375 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir.) (prevailing party cannot cross-appeal claim construction to enlarge its rights)
United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (U.S.) (corporate veil principles; acts of separate corporations not imputed absent veil-piercing)
MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon, Inc., 420 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir.) (offer-to-sell requires a communicated willingness to conclude a bargain)
Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 254 F.3d 1041 (Fed. Cir.) (advertisements are generally solicitations, not offers)
3D Systems, Inc. v. Aarotech Laboratories, Inc., 160 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir.) (targeted price quotations can constitute offers for sale)