WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., C.A. No. 11-10374, 2013 WL 1808802 (D. Mass. April 24, 2013) (Gorton, D.J.) [Experts, Written Description, Non-Infringement]
Plaintiff WBIP, LLC ("WBIP") brought this action against Defendant Kohler Co. ("Kohler"), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,314,044 and 7,832,196 ("the patents"), both directed toward power generators which include a catalyst to reduce exhaust emissions. In a brief Order, the District Court (Gorton, D.J.) denied Kohler's motions to exclude expert testimony and for summary judgment.
Regarding Kohler's motion to exclude expert testimony, the Court held that the motion was no more than a disagreement with the expert's choice of evidence and conclusions. It, therefore, did not meet the standard set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. The Court did not summarize the testimony at issue or Kohler's arguments, but did note that the expert's "educational background and more than 25 years of experience" rendered him "more than adequately qualified."
Kohler's motion for summary judgment was based on two arguments. First, Kohler argued that the patents were invalid for lack of written description. Without providing any details on the arguments, the Court held that a reasonable jury could find that Kohler had not met its burden of proving invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. In support of this decision, the Court noted that both sides' experts "strongly" disagreed on the issue of written description and that the Patent Office failed to raise written description concerns during prosecution of the patents.
Kohler's second summary judgment argument was that it had not infringed the patents. Again siding with WBIP, the Court held that a reasonable jury could find infringement based on testimony by WBIP's expert and evidence that Kohler had previously described its products as containing the allegedly infringing elements. Accordingly, Kohler's motion for summary judgment was denied.
Originally published October 8, 2013.
This update is for information purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. Under the rules of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, this material may be considered as advertising.