A magistrate judge from the Eastern District of Texas has granted TaylorMade Golf Company, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment in a case in which the well-known golf equipment maker was sued by a smaller company for patent infringement.
In so ruling, the court found that the structure of the golf clubs in question was sufficiently different than those of the plaintiff.
The plaintiffs, Dogleg Right Partners, LP and Dogleg Right Corporation, had sued TaylorMade for infringement of three patents based on TaylorMade’s manufacture and sale of its line of R7 and R9 golf clubs with movable weight technology.
These golf clubs have been among TaylorMade’s most popular and profitable products since the company first introduced movable weight technology in 2004.
After a claim construction ruling earlier this year, Dogleg Right offered to dismiss its infringement claim on one of its three patents, but maintained its position that TaylorMade’s golf clubs infringed the other two patents.
TaylorMade then moved for summary judgment.
Citing Carroll, the Court wrote “An infringement analysis requires comparison of the construed patent claims to the accused devices.” Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mech. Sys., Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “This determination of infringement is a question of fact. Wright Med. Tech., Inc. v. Osteonics Corp., 122 F.3d 1440, 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the absence of a genuine dispute regarding the structure or function of the accused product, the question of infringement may collapse into one of claim construction and thus is well suited for summary judgment. Wang Labs., Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 197 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Laitram Corp. v. Morehouse Indus., Inc., 143 F.3d 1456, 1461-62 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Literal infringement requires the accused device to contain each claim limitation exactly. Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Litton Sys., Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 140 F.3d 1449, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1998). As a matter of law, the absence of a single claim limitation from the accused product precludes literal infringement. Wolverine World Wide Inc. v. Nike, Inc., 38 F.3d 1192, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 1994). A dependent claim cannot be infringed unless the claim from which it depends is infringed. Wahpeton Canvas Co. v. Frontier, Inc., 870 F.2d 1546, 1552 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
“Each of the asserted independent claims recites a similar limitation requiring a plurality of weights to be secured to the walls of the shell of the club head. See ’169 Patent at Claim 9, 14, 15; ’450 Patent at Claim 1. Defendant contends that it is entitled to summary judgment because the accused products do not contain the claimed ‘walls.’ The plaintiff, however, argues that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the accused products contain ‘walls.’ The parties’ disagreement arises out of their differing interpretations of the court’s construction of the ‘wall’ limitation.”
The court clarified, siding with the defendant. It wrote that its construction of “wall” was “intended to require that the weight attachment surface be inside the interior cavity of the golf club head.” This effectively gutted the plaintiff’s claim.
The law firm Sheppard Mullin, which was representing TaylorMade, was rightfully proud of its victory, calling it “an extraordinary feat,” since it occurred in the Eastern District of Texas, where “courts routinely deny summary judgment motions, forcing defendants to trial in a extremely plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction.”
Bill Reimus, TaylorMade’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel, added: “We are pleased that our position has been vindicated by the Court’s decision. The ruling is consistent with the Court’s previous Markman rulings, which correctly construed the claims in a manner that made clear that TaylorMade’s products are non-infringing. We respect the intellectual property rights of others and we expect that others will respect ours. However, if and when infringement is alleged without basis, we will defend ourselves vigorously, as in the present case.”
Dogleg Right Partners L.P. v. TaylorMade Golf Company, Inc.; E.D. Tex.; Case No. 2:07-CV-533-TJW-CE; 6/6/11.
