Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement: Downward Force <> Upward Force

SafeTCare v. Tele-Made (Fed. Cir. 2007).

SafeTCare’s patent covers a bariatric hospital bed designed for obese patients. On summary judgment, the district court found that the Tele-Made beds do not infringe. Other defendants and counterclaims are still pending.

Jurisdiction: On appeal, the CAFC sua sponte questioned jurisdiction. Because the judgment was not complete as to all parties and the judge had not issued a Rule 54(b) order of appealability (See Bashman), the CAFC did not have jurisdiction at the time of oral arguments. However, the CAFC allowed the parties time to ask for such an order from the district court before dismissing the appeal. (This pragmatism is perhaps due to Judge Robinson’s place on the panel).

Upward Force: SafeTCare’s patent requires a plurality of motors exerting a pushing or upward force on the bed.  Tele-Made’s motors are essentially attached to one end of a lever, and by pulling down, cause an upward force on the other end of the lever. However, because SafeTCare’s specification implied a direct link between the motor and the bed, the levered approach was non-infringing. Prosecution history estoppel blocks DOE coverage.

Non-infringement affirmed.

Notes:

• Plaintiff’s attorney was John Egbert


• Michael Sturm of Wiley Rein represented the defendant.


• Judge Sue Robinson (Delaware) sat by designation on the panel. Judge Robinson has heard many many patent cases.

Comments

[Anon]

"However, the CAFC allowed the parties time to ask for such an order from the district court before dismissing the appeal. (This pragmatism is perhaps due to Judge Robinson’s place on the panel)."

"This pragmatism" is actually precedent. See Pause Tech v. Tivo http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1263.pdf

[TJ]

Yes, Pause Tech exercised judicial mercy. The Federal Circuit is not always so lenient: it does sometimes dismiss when parties fail to get the necessary Rule 54(b) certification, without giving them a second chance. Int'l Elec. Tech. Corp. v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 476 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

[Anon]

The Int'l Elec. case is distinguishable: the CAFC had asked the parties to get a Rule 54(b) certification, but the district court refused to grant one.

http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1368o.pdf

[DuWayne Kramer Jr.]

I wish to correct your statements. The origional summary judgment decision was for Burke not Tele-made.Tele-made had been dropped from the case at that time. Burke alone took the case to the Federal Circuit with Michael Sturm as council for Burke. The Federal Ciruit Rules for Burke in Safetcare V. Burke. On August 3,2007 The United States Court of Appeals for the Ferderal Circuit affirmed the summary judgment motion of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In an unusual ruling the district court granted, before trial, Burke's summary judgment motion finding the Tri-Flex bed did not infringe the Safetcare 6,357,065 patient. A summary judgment is appropriate if "there is no genunine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of Law. The Federal Circut reviewed the District Court's grant of summary judgment and affirmed the decision.