Everything Baseball v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co.
2009 WL 1181901, 611 F. Supp. 2d 832, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37244 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A patent claim is invalid as anticipated only if clear and convincing evidence shows that every limitation of the claim is disclosed in a single prior art reference. Where a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether a prior art reference discloses a claimed limitation, summary judgment on the issue of anticipation is improper.
Facts:
- Everything Baseball is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 6,161,226 (the '226 patent), which describes a specific design for a baseball chest protector.
- The claims of the '226 patent include limitations such as 'a flexible main pad,' an 'abdomen portion,' and 'a flexible shoulder guard.'
- Prior to the '226 patent, another patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,530,966 (the '966 patent), was issued to Joseph West for a protective garment.
- A company named Douglas manufactured and sold a chest protector that embodied the design of the '966 patent.
- Wilson Sporting Goods also manufactured and sold a chest protector under the trade name 'West Vest,' which embodied the '966 patent.
- The Wilson 'West Vest' was sold with a 'hang tag' that depicted images and described parts of the protector.
- Defendants Wilson Sporting Goods, Rawlings Sporting Goods, and others sell baseball chest protectors that Everything Baseball alleges infringe on its '226 patent.
Procedural Posture:
- Everything Baseball, the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 6,161,226, sued Wilson Sporting Goods and several other manufacturers in U.S. District Court for patent infringement.
- The defendants collectively filed a motion for summary judgment against Everything Baseball.
- In their motion, the defendants argued that the '226 patent is invalid because it was anticipated by three prior art references: the '966 patent, a chest protector made by Douglas, and a hang tag from a Wilson product.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prior art reference 'anticipate' a patent claim as a matter of law, thereby invalidating the patent, when there are genuine factual disputes about whether the reference discloses key limitations of the claim, such as having a 'flexible main pad' or an 'abdomen portion'?
Opinions:
Majority - Bucklo
No. A prior art reference does not anticipate a patent as a matter of law when there are genuine factual disputes regarding whether the reference discloses every limitation of the patent claim. To grant summary judgment for anticipation, a single prior art reference must indisputably teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Here, there are triable issues of fact for each of the defendants' three proffered prior art references. First, after a physical inspection of the Douglas chest protector, the court determined that a factual question exists as to whether it contains an 'abdomen portion,' as it appears to end several inches above the navel. Second, the '966 patent describes its outer plates as 'stiff,' creating a factual dispute over whether the protector's 'main pad' can be considered 'flexible' as required by the '226 patent; the fact that the stiff plates are hinged does not necessarily render the entire assembly 'flexible' in the manner contemplated by the patent-in-suit. Finally, the Wilson 'hang tag' is insufficient as a matter of law because its drawings and descriptions do not provide enough detail to determine if the protector is 'flexible' or covers the abdomen. Because genuine issues of material fact exist for each reference, the defendants' motion is denied.
Analysis:
This memorandum opinion illustrates the high evidentiary bar required to invalidate a patent on a motion for summary judgment based on anticipation. It underscores that anticipation is a question of fact, and summary judgment is inappropriate if any reasonable dispute exists over whether the prior art discloses every single claim limitation. The decision shows how the interpretation of seemingly simple claim terms, like 'flexible' and 'abdomen portion,' can become central factual inquiries that must be resolved by a jury. This reinforces the strength of the presumption of patent validity and limits the ability of accused infringers to resolve such cases before a full trial.
Unlock the full brief for Everything Baseball v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co.