Dorel Juvenile Group v. Graco Children's P

12 Citing cases

  1. Rice v. Honeywell International, Inc.

    494 F. Supp. 2d 487 (E.D. Tex. 2007)   Cited 3 times

    According to Rice, even if there is no dispute as to the structure of the accused device, it is improper to grant summary judgment when there are conflicting arguments as to whether a claim limitation does or does not find response in the accused device. Rice relies upon Int'l Rectifier Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 361 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v. Graco Children's Prods., Inc., 429 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In the Report, the summary judgment standard applied is that of whether a reasonable jury could find that the claim limitation as construed by the Court is found in the accused device.

  2. Neonatal Prod. Grp., Inc. v. Shields

    Case No. 13-2601-DDC-KGS (D. Kan. May. 3, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    Similarly, the Federal Circuit considered a patent for a child's car seat that described a seat that is "removably secured" to a base and a base that is "removably attached" to the seat. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v. Graco Children's Prods., Inc., 429 F.3d 1043, 1044-45 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Circuit affirmed the district court's construction of the terms "removably secured" and "removably attached" as ones meaning that "the claimed product is designed to come apart."

  3. Windbrella Products Corp. v. Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc.

    414 F. Supp. 2d 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)   Cited 5 times

    Accord Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 5 F.3d 514, 519 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ("by making such a factual finding the court improperly resolved a disputed material factual issue"). 429 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2005).See Dorel Juvenile Group, 429 F.3d at 1044.

  4. Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation & Research v. Donghee Am., Inc.

    No. 2018-2087 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 3, 2019)

    A material factual dispute prevents summary judgment. See Dorel Juvenile Grp., Inc. v. Graco Children's Prod., Inc., 429 F.3d 1043, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (vacating grant of summary judgment of noninfringement because a material factual dispute existed over how the accused product functioned); Hilgraeve Corp. v. McAfee Assocs., Inc., 224 F.3d 1349, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("These differences in the experts' descriptions of [the allegedly infringing process's] operation raise a genuine issue of material fact."). This court should vacate the district court's summary judgment of noninfringement, and remand the case for resolution of the dispositive material factual dispute.

  5. Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation & Research v. Donghee Am., Inc.

    943 F.3d 929 (Fed. Cir. 2019)   Cited 12 times
    Finding Defendants' post-suit sales of allegedly infringing products insufficient to support Plaintiff's claims where Plaintiff did not seek preliminary injunction, and Defendant had asserted reasonable defenses

    A material factual dispute prevents summary judgment. See Dorel Juvenile Grp., Inc. v. Graco Children's Prod., Inc. , 429 F.3d 1043, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (vacating grant of summary judgment of noninfringement because a material factual dispute existed over how the accused product functioned); Hilgraeve Corp. v. McAfee Assocs., Inc. , 224 F.3d 1349, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("These differences in the experts’ descriptions of [the allegedly infringing process’s] operation raise a genuine issue of material fact."). This court should vacate the district court’s summary judgment of noninfringement, and remand the case for resolution of the dispositive material factual dispute.

  6. Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA Inc.

    852 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017)   Cited 34 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it was proper for the jury to evaluate competing expert testimony about if the accused products met the ordinary meaning of the relevant claim limitation

    '362 patent, col. 8, lines 66–67, and col. 9, lines 13–19.Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v. Graco Children's Products, Inc. , 429 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2005), which interpreted superficially similar claim terms, does not establish non-infringement here. In Dorel , which involved a patent on a child's car seat, the asserted claims recited a "base," which was "removably attached" and "removably secured" to a "seat."

  7. Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA Inc.

    842 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)   Cited 5 times   3 Legal Analyses

    '362 patent, col. 8, lines 66–67, and col. 9, lines 13–19. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v. Graco Children's Products, Inc. , 429 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2005), which interpreted superficially similar claim terms, does not establish non-infringement here. In Dorel , which involved a patent on a child's car seat, the asserted claims recited a "base," which was "removably attached" and "removably secured" to a "seat."

  8. Lighting Def. Grp. v. Shanghai Sansi Elec. Eng'g Co.

    No. CV-22-01476-PHX-SMB (D. Ariz. Jan. 17, 2024)

    LDG argues that Sansi's construction is inserting “easily” into the patent's terminology where it otherwise does not exist. In making this argument, LDG relies on the ruling in Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v. Graco Children's Prods., Inc., 429 F.3d 1043, 1044-47 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In that case, the claims used the terms “removably secured” and “removably attached” and the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's order refusing to add the term “easily” to the claims.

  9. Danmark v. CMI United States, Inc.

    Case No. 13-cv-00457-JST (N.D. Cal. Sep. 22, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    CMI argues that the jury erred in applying the "removably coupled" and "removably attached" limitations, because whatever plain meaning the jury applied was at odds with the definition given to the term "removably attached" in another case involving children's car seats. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v. Graco Children's Prods., 429 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In Dorel, the Federal Circuit vacated a grant of summary judgment of non-infringement and remanded the case to the district court to determine, as a matter of fact, whether the accused child's car seat met the limitations of the asserted claims.

  10. Cook Inc. v. Endologix, Inc.

    No. 1:09-cv-01248-TWP-DKL (S.D. Ind. Aug. 31, 2012)

    Id. A genuine dispute over any material fact in this inquiry makes summary judgment improper. See, e.g., id. at 1260; Crown Packaging Tech., Inc.v. Rexam Beverage Can Co., 559 F.3d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc.v. Graco Children's Prods., Inc., 429 F.3d 1043, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Court will examine Endologix assertions of noninfringement in turn.