Woodrow WOODS and Marine Exhaust Systems, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DEANGELO MARINE EXHAUST, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 2010-1478.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Aug. 28, 2012.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Michael C. Cesarano, Feldman Gale, P.A., of Miami, FL, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief was Richard Guerra.
Before LINN, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
LINN, Circuit Judge.
DeAngelo Marine Exhaust, Inc. (“DeAngelo“) appeals from the denial by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida of DeAngelo‘s motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL“) as to invalidity and infringement of U.S. Patents No. 5,740,670 (“‘670 Patent“) and No. 6,035,633 (“‘633 Patent“) owned by Woodrow Woods (“Woods“) and exclusively licensed to Marine Exhaust Systems, Inc. (“MES“) following a jury verdict in MES‘s favor. DeAngelo also appeals the district court‘s evidentiary ruling and claim construction underlying the jury verdict and the denial of DeAngelo‘s motion to sanction MES for failing to conduct an adequate pre-filing investigation. For the reasons set forth below, this court affirms.
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Patents in Suit
Water jacketed marine exhaust systems cool exhaust as it exits the engine of a marine vessel. These devices generally consist of two metal cylinders with exhaust flowing through the inner cylinder and water flowing through the space between the inner and outer cylinders. The patents in suit are directed to an apparatus that more efficiently cools exhaust by tapering the tail end of the outer liner so it directs the cooling water into the exhaust stream, and prevents water migration and corrosion by tapering the tail end of the inner liner to reduce the turbulence at the end of the pipe.
Woods filed U.S. Patent Application No. 08/419,097 (“‘097 Application“) on April 10, 1995. The ‘097 Application disclosed and claimed: (1) a water jacketed exhaust system with an elongated, tapered, inner liner and outer shell; (2) a spacer separating the liner and shell; and (3) the inner and outer tapered surfaces acting as a clip for turbulence and a deflection surface respec-
On July 1, 1996, an examiner rejected all claims of the ‘097 Application as anticipated by U.S. Patents No. 5,212,949 (“Shiozawa“) and No. 799,013 (“Moffitt“). Instead of responding to the ‘097 anticipation rejection, Woods allowed the ‘097 Application to go abandoned and continued to prosecute the CIP ‘548 Application. On April 25, 1997, the same examiner who had rejected the ‘097 Application allowed several of the claims in the ‘548 Application. On April 21, 1998, the ‘548 Application issued as the ‘670 Patent.
On December 15, 1997, before the ‘548 Application had matured into the ‘670 Patent, Woods filed CIP application No. 08/990,821 (“‘821 Application“). The invention claimed in the ‘821 Application was similar to that of the ‘548 Application, but was not limited to an elongated inner liner extending beyond the outer shell. On April 1, 1999, the examiner rejected claims 1-4, 6, and 8-21 of the ‘821 Application as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,977,741 (“Lulloff“). Woods amended the claims by reciting a spacer between the inner and outer cylinders that created a back pressure so that water forcefully sprayed out of a spray ring. Woods argued that Lulloff did not contain this limitation and that the amended claims were not anticipated. Woods never argued that the claims were or were not patentable as initially written. The examiner allowed the amended claims, and the ‘821 Application issued as the ‘633 Patent on March 14, 2000. Woods exclusively licensed both the ‘670 and ‘633 Patents to MES.
B. Pre-Suit Investigation
MES competes with DeAngelo in the marine exhaust system market. Sometime prior to March 2006, other members of the industry informed MES that DeAngelo was selling exhaust systems that were believed to infringe the Woods patents. Based on these statements, on March 10, 2006, MES wrote a letter to DeAngelo requesting information on its water cooled products. DeAngelo indicated in an April 3, 2006 response that it would investigate MES‘s infringement concerns and contact MES. DeAngelo never contacted MES after sending its initial April 3, 2006 letter. Over a year later one of MES‘s employees photographed an allegedly infringing DeAngelo device on a vessel in West Palm Beach, FL. A year after that, Sheila Prieschl, Vice President of MES, personally inspected and photographed additional DeAngelo devices. On December 31, 2008, after reviewing these photographs, MES and Woods filed this patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
C. The Proceedings Below
Woods‘s suit alleged that DeAngelo infringed one or more claims of the ‘670 or ‘633 Patents and sought both damages and injunctive relief. DeAngelo responded that it did not infringe the Woods patents and that the asserted claims are invalid as obvious under
From the record it appears that on May 15, 2009, MES propounded Interrogatory 25, which read: “State with specificity all prior art that anticipates such claims of
On February 8, 2010, the day before discovery closed, DeAngelo located several engineering drawings that allegedly predated the ‘670 and ‘633 Patents. DeAngelo immediately forwarded the drawings to MES with a letter stating that “[t]hese documents arguably may anticipate the Woods invention(s), or may be relied upon as showing the state of the art in the early 1990‘s.” E-mail from Michael C. Cesarano, counsel for DeAngelo, to Jennifer Simpson, counsel for MES (Feb. 8, 2010) (J.A. 293) (“Disclosure E-mail“). DeAngelo‘s letter questioned “whether [MES] would object to [DeAngelo‘s] use of [the newly discovered drawings] if trial should begin before March 10,” because DeAngelo‘s disclosure would then violate
A two-week jury trial commenced on April 5, 2010. At the beginning of DeAngelo‘s defense, MES moved under
a party confronted with interrogatory [sic] of that nature has some obligation to move forward with the development of its defense and in a timely fashion to respond and supplement to its answer.... [T]o wait to do that until February 8th of 2010 is not responsible.... [T]his is not a timely response and it is not a timely supplement to the propounded interrogatory. It is not a timely supplement to the answer that was [originally] given ... its timing is way off, it should have done that much earlier.
Tr. of Prior Art Argument at 23-25, Woods v. DeAngelo Marine Exhaust, Inc., No. 08-cv-81579 (S.D.Fla. Sept. 12, 2010), ECF No. 284 (“Prior Art Argument“) (emphasis added) (paragraph structure not indicated). The court then found DeAngelo‘s untimely disclosure neither justified nor harmless and excluded the drawings pursuant to
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
A district court‘s evidentiary rulings are procedural in nature and this court reviews them under the law of the regional circuit, in this case, the Eleventh Circuit. TransCore, LP v. Elec. Transaction Consultants Corp., 563 F.3d 1271, 1277 (Fed.Cir.2009). The Eleventh Circuit reviews a district court‘s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. Goodman-Gable-Gould Co. v. Tiara Condo., Ass‘n., 595 F.3d 1203, 1210 (11th Cir.2010). “A district court abuses its discretion when it misapplies the law in reaching its decision or bases its decision on findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” Id. (quoting Arce v. Garcia, 434 F.3d 1254, 1260 (11th Cir.2006)). A district court‘s
A district court‘s construction of disputed claim terms is a legal determination this court reviews de novo. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1456 (Fed.Cir.1998) (en banc). The ultimate determination of obviousness is also a legal question this court reviews de novo, but the jury‘s underlying factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. LNP Eng‘g. Plastics, Inc. v. Miller Waste Mills, Inc., 275 F.3d 1347, 1353 (Fed.Cir.2001).
JMOL is appropriate on an issue when “a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.”
B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and 35 U.S.C. § 282
DeAngelo‘s principal argument is that the district court erred by excluding the engineering drawings disclosed on February 8, 2010, as an untimely interrogatory supplement despite DeAngelo‘s identification of the drawings immediately upon finding them and on the final day of the scheduled discovery period. DeAngelo points out that it stated in its initial interrogatory response that it had not decided which prior art references it would use and would disclose the references on which it would rely as required by
MES counters that the court properly excluded the drawings because DeAngelo failed to supplement its answer to MES‘s Interrogatory 25, failed to justify its late disclosure, and failed to show that the late disclosure was harmless. Oral Arg. at 20:50-21:20, available at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/2010-1478/all/woods.html. Accordingly, this appeal requires us to determine whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding the drawings, despite DeAngelo‘s discovery and disclosure of the drawings within the thirty-day period required by
1.
We begin by disposing of DeAngelo‘s argument that MES waived its right to object to the drawings. DeAngelo cites several cases to support its contention that MES waived its right to object by not doing so when it received DeAngelo‘s letter disclosing the drawings and supplementing its interrogatory answer. See Butler v. Pettigrew, 409 F.2d 1205, 1207 (7th Cir.1969) (finding waiver when plaintiffs did not object until after entry of judgment); Sure Fill & Seal, Inc. v. GFF, Inc., 2010 WL 3063287, at *7 n. 4 (M.D.Fla. July 6, 2010) (citing Brandt v. Vulcan, Inc., 30 F.3d 752, 756-57 (7th Cir.1994)). Those cases merely support the proposition that a trial court‘s decision whether or not to find waiver is discretionary—they do not compel this court to find that a district court abuses its discretion when it does not find waiver in a case like this. Here, the district court was given no clear basis on which to find waiver, and we see no reason to question the district court‘s actions or re-visit the issue. Accordingly, we turn to the merits of DeAngelo‘s argument.
2.
This court generally reviews application of the
Contention interrogatories—like the interrogatory here—serve an important purpose in helping to discover facts supporting the theories of the parties. Answers to contention interrogatories also serve to narrow and sharpen the issues thereby confining discovery and simplifying trial preparation. See
The district court has considerable discretion in overseeing compliance with the
Recognizing the evolving nature of the contentions of the parties leading up to trial and to protect patentees from unfair and prejudicial surprise at trial, Congress established
at least thirty days before the trial, of ... any publication to be relied upon ... as showing the state of the art, and the name and address of any person who may be relied upon as the prior inventor or as having prior knowledge of or as having previously used or offered for sale the invention of the patent in suit. In the absence of such notice proof of the said matters may not be made at the trial except on such terms as the court requires.
During the hearing on MES‘s motion to exclude the drawings, the district court treated the timing of the production of the drawings and the supplementation of the interrogatory as two separate, but related issues. See Prior Art Argument at 3-8. When gathering the facts necessary to its decision, the district court inquired: “Why were [the drawings] not produced in an earlier fashion and why was the answer to the interrogatory not supplemented at an earlier time.” Id. at 8 (emphasis added). After receiving DeAngelo‘s response describing why the documents were not produced earlier, the district court again asked “why wasn‘t the answer to the interrogatory supplemented?” Id. at 12. In issuing its decision, the district court specifically considered DeAngelo‘s contention that the e-mail of February 8, 2010 was a supplement to Interrogatory 25. Id. at 24. The court quoted the e-mail, which was admittedly “general,” and concluded that the e-mail was “not a timely supplement to the propounded interrogatory.” Id.
While the ruling by the district court did not explicitly address the propriety of the supplementation and focused primarily on the issue of timeliness, the record is clear that both issues were presented to the district court and are reiterated before us on appeal. MES specifically argues that “[w]hile DeAngelo provided the documents to MES‘s attorney on February 8, 2010, DeAngelo did not clearly state the purpose of the documents or how they might be used.” Appellee‘s Br. 20. MES thus argues that the February 8 e-mail “did not serve to supplement the mandatory Rule 26 disclosures or the interrogatory responses.” Id. at 22 (emphasis added). Woods also specifically raised the issue at oral argument, stating “there was no
4.
The district court held that the documents in question were not timely produced and imposed a sanction under
This court agrees with the district court that
Having properly found that DeAngelo‘s failure to supplement its interrogatory response was a violation of
C. Claim Construction
DeAngelo next argues that the district court erred in its construction of four disputed claim terms. According to DeAngelo, the court‘s constructions fail to account for the inventions’ physical and functional limitations required by the specifications. See ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc., 558 F.3d 1368, 1375-76 (Fed.Cir. 2009). MES counters that DeAngelo merely proposes alternative, more restrictive descriptions of terms that already have a clear meaning to one of skill in the art, and the district court‘s construction correctly refrains from reading unnecessary limitations into the claims. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc).
Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning—the meaning that they would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in light of the specification and prosecution history at the time of the invention. Id. at 1312-13. The specification need not describe every embodiment of the claimed invention, see Netword, LLC v. Centraal Corp., 242 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed.Cir.2001), and the claims should not be confined to the disclosed embodiments—even when the specification discloses only one embodiment, Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
Claim terms are properly construed to include limitations not otherwise inherent in the term only “when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer,” or “when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm‘t. Am., LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.Cir.2012). “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term‘....” Id. (quoting CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.Cir.2002)). Moreover, “[w]here the specification makes clear that the invention does not include a particular feature, that feature is deemed to be outside the patent, even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” Id. at 1366 (internal citation omitted). As detailed below, the district court‘s construction of each term is consistent with the plain meaning of the term, while DeAngelo‘s constructions require us to adopt limitations not defined in, or required by, the specification.
DeAngelo argues that the court‘s construction of the claimed expression “elongated outer shell” as “the outer pipe that extends past the spray ring,” is overly broad and should be limited to outer shells having a length sufficient to deflect and break apart water from the spray ring—the function stated in the specification. MES counters that the plain meaning of “elongated” outer shell is simply that the outer shell extends past the spray ring. MES points to claims that cover an embodiment where the water is not directed toward the outer shell. See ‘633 Patent col. 7 ll. 45-62; ‘670 Patent col. 6 ll. 17-33. MES thus contends that defining the term “elongated outer shell” as a shell long enough to deflect water improperly reads a limitation into the term—a limitation not required by every embodiment.
MES is correct. Nothing in the plain meaning of “elongated outer shell” requires that the shell extend far enough past the inner shell to serve as a deflection plane for water. In fact, “elongated” is an adjective used to describe both the inner liner and outer shell within the same claim. Compare ‘633 Patent col. 7 l. 48 (“an elongated inner liner“), with ‘633 Patent col. 7 l. 50 (“an elongated outer shell“). Therefore “elongated” cannot mean long enough to provide a deflection surface; and “outer shell” simply refers to the outer cylinder. Woods‘s abandonment of the ‘097 Application, an event that DeAngelo stresses in its obviousness argument, further undermines DeAngelo‘s claim construction argument. The claims of the abandoned ‘097 Application expressly required a deflection surface for the sprayed water. The ‘670 Patent‘s claims do not have such a limitation.
The patentee did not expressly define “elongated outer shell” as providing a deflection surface, nor did he disavow an outer liner that does not deflect water. This court will not read such a limitation into the term merely because it is disclosed in some embodiments. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. The district court correctly construed “elongated outer shell.”
2. “inwardly tapered section”
DeAngelo next argues that the court erred in construing the phrase “inwardly tapered section” as “the section of the elongated outer shell or elongated inner liner that has a reduction in diameter.” Just as DeAngelo urged us to limit “elongated outer shell” to account for the “functional limitation” of a water deflection surface, it argues that “inwardly tapered section” should also be so limited. According to DeAngelo, the term should be construed to require the tapered section occur near the tail end of the shell, so water can deflect off of the tapered surface. In support, DeAngelo points to embodiments in the specification where water collides with the inwardly tapered section. See, e.g., ‘670 Patent col. 2 ll. 25-28. MES disagrees and argues that while some embodiments may indeed function by deflecting water off of the tapered surface into the exhaust stream, the claims need not be restricted to that embodiment. We see nothing in the claims or written description to warrant limiting this term to a single embodiment. The district court correctly construed “inwardly tapered section” not to require a deflection surface.
3. “directed towards”
DeAngelo argues that the district court‘s construction of the phrase “directed towards” as “caused to flow in a direction that results in contact with,” is overly broad because the specification requires the water to hit the liner with enough force to fan out, not merely contact the liner. MES counters that the ordinary meaning of the phrase “directed towards” is clear and unencumbered with the addi-
The district court‘s construction of “directed towards” is correct. Like the other disputed terms, the specification does not require the water to forcefully collide with a surface. For example, some claims specifically require that the water forcefully exit the spray ring and flow towards a wall, other claims do not require such force. Compare ‘670 Patent col. 6 l. 64-col. 7 l. 4, with ‘633 Patent col. 8 ll. 49-53. The patentee never expressly defined “directed towards,” nor did he disavow the clear definition found by the district court. This court will not construe this otherwise clear term to include a limitation already present in some claims but not others.
4. “angularly disposed”
Finally, DeAngelo argues that the district court‘s construction of “angularly disposed” as “a spray ring positioned in a way that is not parallel or perpendicular to the central axis of the inner liner” is over-broad because it does not limit the spray of the water stream towards the outer shell. DeAngelo claims that the court‘s construction allows a spray ring that directs water towards the inner liner, an embodiment not described in the specification. According to DeAngelo, “[t]he specifications of each of the Patents-in-Suit disclose only two possible orientations for the spray ring,” at an approximately 90° angle relevant to the central axis, or directed towards the outer liner. Appellant‘s Br. 55. MES accuses DeAngelo of again reading an unwarranted limitation into the claims based on specific embodiments, in contravention of Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
The district court‘s construction comports with the ordinary meaning of this term. The phrase “angularly disposed” does not prescribe any specific angle. The patentee never defined the term nor disavowed a broader meaning. Furthermore, it is not necessary to read DeAngelo‘s proposed limitation into the term because every claim that uses this term already limits the ring to being directed toward the outer wall. See ‘670 Patent col. 6 l. 54-col. 7 l. 4, col. 7 l. 12-col. 8 l. 12; ‘633 Patent col. 8 ll. 35-53, col. 9 ll. 11-18.
The district court correctly declined to read unwarranted limitations into the disputed claim terms. For the foregoing reasons, this court affirms the district court‘s claim construction.
D. Validity
DeAngelo challenges the district court‘s denial of JMOL that the asserted claims of Woods‘s patents are invalid as obvious under
MES counters that the prior art references do not show every limitation of Woods‘s asserted claims; they specifically lack any teaching of a tapered inner liner. MES also argues that because DeAngelo‘s prior art drawings were properly excluded, they cannot support an obvious rejection.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the appropriate obviousness analysis in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The Court instructed us to: (1) determine the scope and content of the prior art, (2) ascertain the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, (3) resolve the level of ordinary skill in the art, and (4) determine obviousness in light of objective factors like “commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc.” Id. at 406 (quoting Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966)). At bottom, the obviousness analysis is a common sense test, and “[i]f a person of ordinary skill ... would have found the invention [a] predictable and achievable variation or combination of the prior art, then the invention likely would have been obvious.” Rolls-Royce, PLC v. United Techs., Corp., 603 F.3d 1325, 1338 (Fed.Cir.2010) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 417).
1. The Prior Art Patents
DeAngelo first contends that because all claims of Woods‘s initial ‘097 Application were rejected as anticipated by the Shiozawa and Moffit references, Woods‘s abandonment of the ‘097 Application is “an inference, if not an admission that the claims of that application are unpatentable as being anticipated by both Shiozawa and Moffit (thus defining the scope and content of the prior art).” Appellant‘s Br. 36. MES contests that assertion and cites Paperless Accounting v. Bay Area Rapid Transit System, 804 F.2d 659 (Fed.Cir.1986), to support the proposition that Woods‘s decision to abandon the ‘097 Application and pursue the broader ‘548 Application cannot constitute even an inference that the ‘097 Application was properly rejected. MES argues that although Shiozawa and Moffit are within the prior art, neither teaches an inwardly tapered tail end of the inner liner.
DeAngelo‘s characterization of Woods‘s abandonment of the ‘097 Application as an admission that the Shiozawa and Moffit references disclose every element of Woods‘s patents is meritless. DeAngelo fails to consider that Woods filed the ‘548 Application more than six months before the examiner rejected the ‘097 Application. Moreover, the claims in the ‘548 Application are arguably broader than the claims in the ‘097 Application, and Woods prosecuted the ‘548 Application before the same examiner who eventually rejected the ‘097 Application. There is nothing to suggest that Woods did anything other than simply choose to pursue the similar, but broader, ‘548 Application instead of continuing to prosecute the ‘097 Application. This court declines to characterize Woods‘s conduct as an admission or concession that the claims in the ‘097 Application are anticipated by Shiozawa or Moffitt.
DeAngelo next contends that Woods‘s amendment in response to the examiner‘s April 1, 1999 rejection constituted an admission that the originally filed claims of the ‘821 Application (ultimately the ‘633 Patent) were anticipated by Lulloff. DeAngelo argues that Woods acquiesced to the substance of the examiner‘s rejection because Woods added a different limitation instead of arguing that Lulloff does not teach a tapered liner. According to DeAngelo, this qualifies as an admission that all limitations in the initial claims,
In TorPharm, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 336 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed.Cir.2003), this court rejected Ranbaxy‘s similar acquiescence rationale, explaining that “Ranbaxy‘s argument blurs the distinction between claims and limitations: patentability is assessed for the former, not the latter.” Explicit limitations are material to the infringement inquiry. Id. at 1331 n. 9. But viewing an amendment as an admission that the initial claim was unpatentable requires more than the mere presence of a limitation. See id. at 1330.
DeAngelo relies on a number of reissue proceeding cases like Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472 (Fed.Cir.1998), which address the surrender of subject matter during the initial prosecution. But Hester cites Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 995 (Fed.Cir.1993), which suggests there must be additional evidence (e.g., argument to the examiner) to support a conclusion that an amendment was an admission. Hester, 142 F.3d at 1480-81. DeAngelo also relies on Lemelson v. General Mills, Inc., 968 F.2d 1202, 1207-08 (Fed.Cir.1992), to support its acquiescence theory. But in Lemelson, it is not clear to what extent the patentee argued the rejection with the examiner. Id. Moreover, this court specifically distinguished Lemelson in TorPharm based on similar facts to those here. TorPharm, 336 F.3d at 1331 n. 9.
This court does not accept DeAngelo‘s acquiescence theory as support for its contention that Lulloff contains a tapered surface as a matter of law. The examiner rejected the ‘821 Application as anticipated by Lulloff, which showed an elongated liner and shell with an inwardly tapered section. Woods made no statement representing that a tapered liner was not disclosed by Lulloff. He never admitted it. He never addressed it. All he argued to the examiner was that using a spacer to create back pressure in the inner volume was not disclosed by Lulloff. A patent applicant is not presumed to have conceded the presence in the prior art of every claim limitation he had no reason to dispute. This court has considered DeAngelo‘s other arguments that Woods‘s specifications and the prior art patents render the asserted claims of the Woods patents obvious and finds them to be without merit.
2. Excluded Drawings and the Key Marine Riser
DeAngelo also argues that its excluded drawings demonstrate that every limitation of the asserted claims was known in the prior art. As discussed above, see supra § II.B, the district court properly excluded these drawings and the drawings are properly excluded from the obviousness analysis. Finally, DeAngelo relies on the “Key Marine Riser,” a device presented to the jury, to show that a tapered tail end existed in the prior art. But the jury physically inspected the Key Marine Riser and was free to conclude that it did not support DeAngelo‘s theory. DeAngelo has failed to show that the prior art singly or collectively disclosed or taught every limitation of the claims at issue. On this evidence, this court cannot say that the jury could not have sustained the validity of the claims at issue.
E. Non-Infringement
DeAngelo‘s argument that the district court erred in denying its motion for JMOL of non-infringement is relatively narrow. DeAngelo argues that MES failed to introduce any infringement evidence, other than engineering drawings, for DeAngelo‘s “notched diffusers,” and
MES counters that at trial the jury heard testimony that adding a “hose bead” to the end of a liner, regardless of the type of diffuser, would cause an indentation and tapering effect. Also, the jury was able to physically inspect the Key Marine Riser and observe the taper that a hose bead caused. MES argues that, in light of DeAngelo‘s admission that all of its products contain a hose bead, the evidence of a hose bead induced taper was sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that DeAngelo‘s notched diffusers also had a tapered liner and infringed the Woods patents.
MES is correct. DeAngelo admitted that all of its products contain a hose bead. Darrin Woods testified that a hose bead on the diffuser causes an indentation in the liner resulting in the requisite tapered surface. Darrin Woods‘s testimony was a legally sufficient basis on which the jury could have found that DeAngelo‘s notched diffusers infringed the asserted claims of the Woods patents. The district court did not err by denying JMOL of non-infringement.
F. Rule 11 Sanctions
Finally, DeAngelo alleges that MES and Woods filed this lawsuit without conducting an adequate pre-suit investigation into whether or not DeAngelo‘s products actually infringe. DeAngelo argues that MES decided to file this lawsuit based only on photographs taken by an MES employee and that MES‘s attorney did not make an adequate infringement determination prior to filing. DeAngelo stresses that Woods made the decision to file the infringement suit based only on grainy photographs that Woods himself admitted did not clearly show the elements of the claims. MES counters that the grainy black and white photographs DeAngelo used to elicit Woods‘s testimony were not the same photos on which the suit was based; the suit was based on the same high definition color photos presented at trial and used to prove infringement to the jury. Moreover, Woods and MES point out that for over two years, DeAngelo denied them the access to DeAngelo‘s products that they sought and that DeAngelo now argues was required.
The Eleventh Circuit imposes
Here, the record is replete with evidence supporting the district court‘s conclusion that MES conducted a sufficient pre-filing investigation including photographing and studying photographs of DeAngelo‘s accused products. See supra § I.B. Nonetheless, DeAngelo argues that Judin v. United States, 110 F.3d 780 (Fed. Cir.1997), compels the conclusion that MES‘s mere observations of DeAngelo products cannot constitute an adequate investigation. DeAngelo‘s reliance on Judin is misplaced. In Judin, the plaintiff observed allegedly infringing products from a distance, but never sought access to in-
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.