Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case No.
Title
Present: The
Honorable
James V. Selna
Karla J. Tunis
Sharon Seffens
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter
Francis Ryu
James Lowe
Proceedings:
Cause called and counsel make their appearances. The Courts tentative
ruling is issued. Counsel submit on the Courts tentative ruling. The Court
GRANTS the above referenced motion for partial summary jdugment and rules in
accordance with the tentative ruling as follows:
Among the eight claims in its Complaint, Plaintiff Dzinesquare, Inc., dba 2 Crave
(2 Crave) asserts a patent infringement claim against Defendant Armano Luxury
Alloys, Inc. (Armano) based on Armanos alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No.
D689,809 S (809 Patent). (Compl., Docket (Dkt.) No. 1.) Armano now moves for
summary judgment of 2 Craves patent infringement claim on the basis that the 809
Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(a). (Mot., Dkt. No. 29-1.) In its Motion, Armano
also makes a request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a). (Id. at 911.) 2 Crave
opposes. (Oppn, Dkt. No. 31.) Armano has replied. (Reply, Dkt. No. 32.) In its Reply,
Armano also seeks sanctions against 2 Crave. (Id. at 1820.) Armano also requests that
the Court take judicial notice of four exhibits. (Request for Judicial Notice (RJN), Dkt.
No. 29-3.) 2 Crave does not oppose this request.
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Armanos request for judicial
notice and GRANTS Armanos partial motion for summary judgment. The Court does
not reach a conclusion on Armanos Rule 36(a) request and DENIES Armanos request
for sanctions.
I.
Background
CV-90 (06/04)
Page 1 of 13
Case No.
Title
Legal Standard
A.
Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is appropriate where the record, read in the light most
favorable to the nonmovant,1 indicates that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
1
Page 2 of 13
Case No.
Title
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)2;
see also MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp., 420 F.3d
1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The burden initially is on the moving party to demonstrate
an absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Id.; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 32224 (1986). If, and only if, the moving party meets its burden, then the
non-moving party must produce specific evidence to rebut the moving partys claim and
create a genuine dispute of material fact. MEMC, 420 F.3d at 1373; see also Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). If the non-moving party meets this
burden, then the motion will be denied. See generally, Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d
1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
B.
Invalidity
Page 3 of 13
Case No.
Title
anticipated. Id. (citing Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. PDI Commcn Sys., Inc., 522 F.3d 1348,
135657 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
III.
Discussion
Armano requests that the Court take judicial notice of four exhibits submitted with
the Declaration of Emily Skrdla, more specifically Exhibits 4 through 7. (RJN; Skrdla
Decl., Dkt. No. 29-529-12.) The Court will first address this request before addressing
Armanos motion for partial summary judgment and the two related issues of discovery
and sanctions that arose in the parties briefs.
Armanos Request for Judicial Notice
A.
Armano requests that the Court take judicial notice of four exhibits, including: (1)
a PDK Wheels webpage dated November 4, 2011 showing 2 Craves No. 21 Wheel; (2) a
Wheel Resource webpage dated November 2, 2011 showing 2 Craves No. 21 Wheel; (3)
a photo on 2 Craves Facebook website depicting 2 Craves No. 21 Wheel on a vehicle,
posted on February 28, 2012; (4) a photo on 2 Craves Facebook website depicting 2
Craves No. 21 Wheel with a female model, posted on February 28, 2012. (RJN; Skrdla
Decl., Exs. 47.) 2 Crave does not oppose this request.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), the Court may take judicial notice of
a fact not subject to reasonable dispute because it (1) is generally known within the trial
courts territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
Armano obtained Exhibits 4 and 5 through the Internet Archive, which is a
website that provides access to a digital library of Internet sites. (Affidavit of
Christopher Butler (Butler Aff.), 2, Dkt. No. 29-4.)3 Armano used a service provided
by the Internet Archive called the Wayback Machine to obtain a version of the PDK
Wheels webpage dated November 4, 2011, and a version of the Wheel Resource webpage
dated November 2, 2011. (Skrdla Decl., 517.) Butlers Affidavit confirms the
Page 4 of 13
Case No.
Title
accuracy of the dates of Exhibits 4 and 5. (Butler Aff., 56, Ex. A.)4 The Court thus
takes judicial notice of Exhibits 4 and 5 pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. See,
e.g., Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88068 at *7 n.1 (N.D. Cal. June
25, 2014) ([T]he Court takes judicial notice of the Internet Archive (http://archive.org)
version of 23andMes website as of November 20, 2013, the full version of the website
archived . . . .); In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liability Litig.,
2013 WL 6869410 at *4 n.65 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2013) (Courts have taken judicial
notice of the contents of internet archives.).
Exhibits 6 and 7 are screenshots of photos posted on 2 Craves Facebook webpage
on February 28, 2012 from a 2 Crave open house event in La Mirada, California. The
Court also takes judicial notice of these exhibits pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence
201. See, e.g., I.B. ex rel. Fife v. Facebook, Inc., 905 F. Supp. 2d 989, 998 (N.D. Cal.
2012) (taking judicial notice of screen shots from Facebooks website because the facts
could be accurately and readily determined from sources who accuracy cannot
reasonably be questioned pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201).
The Court thus GRANTS Armanos request for judicial notice in its entirety.
Armanos Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
B.
Page 5 of 13
Case No.
Title
2 Crave claims that a genuine dispute exists as to whether the versions [of the No.
21 Wheel] sold before the critical date of March 19, 2012 were in fact the embodiment of
the 809 Patent. (Oppn, 5:810.) However, 2 Crave neither submits nor cites any
evidence to show that such a dispute exists. Armano, on the other hand, cites clear and
convincing evidence that no genuine dispute exists.
First, 2 Crave admits in its own cease and desist letter it sent to Armano on
November 18, 2013 that the No. 21 Wheel embodies the 809 Patent. (Skrdla Decl., Ex.
1.) The outset of the letter states:
CV-90 (06/04)
Page 6 of 13
Case No.
Title
Armano Has Met its Burden to Show that the 809 Patent is
Invalid
Armano asserts that 2 Craves No. 21 Wheel, which embodies the 809 Patent, was
on sale, in public use, and described in printed publications before March 19, 2012. The
Court reviews Armanos evidence for such assertions in turn.
a.
Two conditions must be satisfied before March 19, 2012 for the 809 Patent to be
held invalid pursuant to the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).5 See Pfaff v. Wells
5
Page 7 of 13
Case No.
Title
Electronics, Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 6768 (1998). The claimed invention must be (1) the
subject of a sale or commercial offer for sale; and (2) ready for patenting. Id.
For the first prong of the test, the Court must apply traditional contract law
principles to determine whether a sale or commercial offer for sale has occurred. Allen
Engg Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2002). [A] single
sale or offer for sale suffices to bar patentability. Electromotive Div. of Gen. Motors
Corp. v. Transp. Sys. Div. of Gen. Elec. Co., 417 F.3d 1203, 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
However, this prong is not met if there is adequate proof that a device was sold
primarily for experimentation. Allen Engg, 299 F.3d at 1353.
Armano argues that 2 Crave sold and offered to sell its No. 21 Wheel prior to
March 19, 2012. (Mot., 46.) To prove a sale of the No. 21 Wheel, Armano cites a 2
Crave invoice for an order from Wheel Resource, dated October 28, 2011 and indicated
as paid for on January 26, 2012. (Skrdla Decl., Ex. 2.) The invoice shows two orders for
the No. 21 Wheel, each for a quantity of four wheels. (Id.) 2 Crave does not dispute that
it sold the No. 21 Wheel to Wheel Resource, nor does it provide any evidence that the
No. 21 Wheel was sold primarily for experimentation. The Court thus considers it
undisputed that 2 Crave sold the No. 21 Wheel for a non-experimental purpose before
March 19, 2012. This single sale of the No. 21 Wheel is sufficient to meet the first prong
of the on-sale bar under 102(a)(1).
Armano also contends that 2 Crave offered the No. 21 Wheel for sale by
advertising the wheel in its 2011 Catalog, posting pictures on its Facebook webpage on
February 28, 2012 of a public display of the wheel, and allowing two companies to
advertise the wheel on their websites. (See Mot., 5:46:8; Skrdla Decl., Exs. 37.)
Armano asserts that these were commercial offers for sale because another party could
make [] a binding contract by simple acceptance of those advertisements and displays.
(Mot., 5:46:8.); see Grp. One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 254 F.3d 1041, 1048 (Fed.
Cir. 2001). However, contract law traditionally recognizes that mere advertising and
Page 8 of 13
Case No.
Title
promoting of a product may be nothing more than an invitation for offers, while
responding to such an invitation may itself be an offer. Grp. One, 254 F.3d at 1048
(citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts 26 (1981)). Because the single sale of the
No. 21 Wheel is alone sufficient to meet the first prong of the on-sale bar, the Court does
not reach a conclusion as to whether the advertising and display of the No. 21 Wheel
constituted offers for sale.
The second prong of the test may be met in at least two ways, namely by proof of
reduction to practice before the critical date; or by proof that prior to the critical date the
inventor had prepared drawings or other descriptions of the invention that were
sufficiently specific to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention. Pfaff,
525 U.S. at 6768. Armano asserts that the No. 21 Wheel is a reduction to practice of the
design in the 809 Patent and that the various advertisements and displays of the wheel
are proof of this reduction to practice. (Mot., 67; Skrdla Decl., Exs. 37.) The Court
agrees. See Fitzgerald v. Arbib, 268 F.2d 763, 765 (C.C.P.A. 1959) ([R]eduction to
practice of a three-dimensional design invention requires the production of an article
embodying that design.); Continental Plastic Containers v. Owens Brockway Plastic
Prods., Inc., 141 F.3d 1073, 1080 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ([D]esign inventions are reduced to
practice as soon as an embodiment is constructed.). 2 Crave submits no evidence to
show any genuine dispute that the No. 21 Wheel was produced, advertised, and displayed
prior to March 19, 2012. Thus, the design in the 809 Patent was ready for patenting
before March 19, 2012.
Armano has met its burden and shown by clear and convincing evidence that the
809 Patent is invalid under the on-sale bar of 102(a)(1).
b.
Two conditions must be satisfied before March 19, 2012 for the 809 Patent to be
held invalid pursuant to the public-use bar of 102(a)(1). Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest
Mfg., L.P., 424 F.3d 1374, 137980 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The claimed invention must be (1)
in public use; and (2) ready for patenting. Id. The ready-for-patenting prong is the same
as that in the test for the on-sale bar. Id. Thus, the Court only addresses the first prong
because the Court has already established that the 809 Patent design was ready for
patenting before the critical date. Evidence of experimental use may also negate either
prong of the public use test. Id. at 1380.
CV-90 (06/04)
Page 9 of 13
Case No.
Title
Page 10 of 13
Case No.
Title
displayed in 2 Craves 2011 Catalog, two wheel company websites, and 2 Craves
Facebook webpage. (Mot., 9:914; Skrdla Decl., Exs. 37.) 2 Crave does not dispute the
existence or occurrence of these advertisements or displays; rather, it tries to argue that
they do not automatically make the 809 Patent invalid because there must be an inquiry
into the facts of each advertisement or display. (Oppn, 8:510.) This is correct, but 2
Crave offers no evidence to create a genuine dispute about the catalog, websites, and
Facebook webpage containing the No. 21 Wheel or about the public accessibility of those
references. It is undisputed that the No. 21 Wheel embodies the only claimed design in
the 809 Patent. Therefore, any reference that includes the No. 21 Wheel and is publicly
accessible renders the 809 Patent invalid under the printed-publication bar of
102(a)(1).
The Court concludes that 2 Craves 2011 Catalog and its Facebook webpage were
publicly accessible, but the Court does not reach a decision as to the two retailer websites.
See, e.g. Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 136465 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
([T]he Post [in an online newsgroup] was sufficiently disseminated to those of ordinary
skill in the art to be considered publically accessible.); Voter Verified, Inc. v. Premier
Election Solutions, Inc., 698 F.3d 1374, 138081 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (article on a website
that was a prominent forum for discussing the technologies embodied in the patent and
was open to any internet user was a publicly accessible publication). Armano does not
provide evidence that one ordinarily skilled in the art of wheel designs would be
independently aware of the PDK Wheels and Wheel Resource websites. One can likely
assume that a person of such ordinary skill would be aware of wheel company websites,
but the Court need not make such an assumption because it is clear that 2 Craves Catalog
and Facebook webpage are publicly accessible. It would be contradictory to 2 Craves
claim that it promotes automotive vehicle wheels if it were to argue that one ordinarily
skilled in the art of wheel design would not be independently aware of its Catalog and
Facebook webpage. (See Compl. 5.) Moreover, 2 Crave does not dispute that the
public had access to its 2011 Catalog or its Facebook webpage. Each posting on its
Facebook webpage also has a like, thereby further indicating that the public had access
to the webpage. (Skrdla Decl., Exs. 67.)
Therefore, Armano has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the 809
Patent is invalid under the printed-publication bar. In conclusion, Armano has met its
burden and shown that the 809 Patent is invalid under the on-sale, public-use, and
printed-publication bars. The Court thus GRANTS Armanos motion for partial
CV-90 (06/04)
Page 11 of 13
Case No.
Title
summary judgment.
C.
In its motion for partial summary judgment, Armano also requests that the Court
order 2 Craves allegedly evasive responses to Armanos Rule 36(a) request for
admissions as admitted. (Mot., 911.) Armano did not bring a separate Rule 36(a)
motion for this request, but instead tries to embed it within its motion for partial summary
judgment. Pursuant to Rule 36(a)(6) and like the two cases upon which Armano relies,
Armano must raise its arguments regarding 2 Craves responses in a separate Rule 36(a)
motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6) (The requesting party may move to determine the
sufficiency of an answer or objection. . . . On finding that an answer does not comply
with this rule, the court may order [] that the matter is admitted.); see Asea, Inc. v. S.
Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1981) (Asea moved to have the requests
ordered admitted.); KNapp v. Adams, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142099 at *2 (E.D. Cal.
Oct. 6, 2014) (On August 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to determine the
sufficiency of Defendantss objections and answers to Plaintiffs Fourth set of Requests
for Admission.).
Therefore, the Court does not reach a conclusion on Armanos request that 2
Craves Rule 36(a) be ordered admitted.
D.
Armano also seeks Local Rule 83-7 sanctions against 2 Crave for violating Local
Rule 7-13 and allegedly violating Local Rule 11-9. (Reply, 1820.) Sanctions are not
appropriate here.
The Court thus DENIES Armanos request for sanctions.
IV.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Armanos motion for partial
summary judgment on 2 Craves patent infringement claim and concludes that the 809
Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
CV-90 (06/04)
Page 12 of 13
Case No.
Title
The Court also GRANTS Armanos request for judicial notice in its entirety, but
does not reach a conclusion on Armanos request to order Rule 36(a) responses admitted
and DENIES Armanos request for sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
0
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)
05
kjt
Page 13 of 13