Donald E. Haney v. Timesavers, Inc., Jeff Terrill MacHinery Inc., Akhurst MacHinery Inc., and Does 1-100

Citation: 48 F.3d 1236Docket: 94-1287

Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; March 21, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) prohibits the citation of nonprecedential opinions and orders as legal precedent, though it allows for the assertion of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, and similar issues based on such decisions. Donald E. Haney appeals the final judgment from the District Court for the District of Oregon, which favored Timesavers, Inc. and related defendants, following their successful motion for summary judgment of non-infringement related to Haney’s patents. The court vacated the previous ruling and remanded the case for further consideration.

The summary judgment was justified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), which allows for such a ruling when no genuine issues of material fact exist. The appeals court conducts a de novo review of summary judgment decisions. Haney’s two patents, the '794 and '342 patents, pertain to stationary sanders designed to minimize cross-grain scratching on wood surfaces. The specific claims of the patents outline the components and mechanisms of the sanders, including features such as a frame, platen, double-drive mechanism, and the relationship between the abrasive sheet and the platen's motion.

A sander includes several components: a frame, subframe, platen, abrasive sheet, a securing device for the abrasive sheet, and two drive mechanisms. The first drive mechanism connects the platen and subframe, allowing the platen to move at a higher speed in a first motion, using at least two power-driven shafts for stabilization. The second drive mechanism connects the subframe and frame for a slower, second motion. The motion of the abrasive sheet is entirely dependent on the platen's motion.

Timesavers produces the 'Series O/B Orbital Brush Sanders,' which utilizes a first motor for circular motion and a second motor for reciprocal linear motion of the platen, preventing cross-grain scratching. To assess patent infringement, a two-step process is employed: first, proper claim construction to define scope and meaning; second, comparison to the accused device. The district court's ruling focused on claim construction, particularly the drive mechanism limitations.

The court ruled that the double-drive mechanism limitation in the '794 patent is a functional claim limitation, thus subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, limiting its scope to the structure detailed in the patent specification. This led to the conclusion that the accused device did not infringe claim 20, as it did not meet the double-drive mechanism limitation.

For the '342 patent, similar limitations were applied to claims 2, 3, and 17, resulting in a finding of no infringement. However, the court's construction was contested; it was argued that the double-drive mechanism limitation in claim 20 should not be governed by § 112, paragraph 6, as it describes structural components alongside their functions, thus removing it from that provision's constraints.

In ZMI Corp. v. Cardiac Resuscitator Corp., the Federal Circuit addressed the construction of a claim limitation regarding electrodes designed to reduce pain by providing a low current density. The court determined that 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, which governs means-plus-function claims, was not applicable, asserting that the limitations were functional rather than structural. This conclusion led to the interpretation that the claims were limited to electrodes capable of reducing current density, rather than to specific structures defined in the patent. Similarly, claim 20 was interpreted to encompass a double-drive mechanism that imparts specified motions without being restricted to the disclosed structures. Consequently, claims 2, 3, and 17 of the '342 patent also escaped the limitations of § 112, paragraph 6. The court found that material factual disputes regarding infringement existed, rendering the district court's summary judgment for Timesavers inappropriate. The judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings, with each party responsible for its own costs. Circuit Judge NIES dissented.