Advertisement

July 24, 2014

The Federal Circuit Finds that Section 282 Is Not a Safety Net to Protect Against Failure to Disclosure Relevant Information During Discovery

In a case addressing the issue of untimely disclosure of evidence to show the state of the art at the time of invention, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s evidentiary ruling excluding the prior art, finding that 35 U.S.C. § 282 could not be used to argue timelines of discovery.  Woodrow Woods et al. v. Deangelo Marine Exhaust, Inc., Case No. 10-1478 (Fed. Cir., Aug. 28, 2012) (Linn, J.).

In a case involving marine exhaust systems, the plaintiff Woodrow Woods licensed co-plaintiff Marine Exhaust Systems, Inc. (MES) under the asserted patents.  During discovery, MES propounded an interrogatory that sought all prior art, including identification of the claims that were anticipated or rendered obvious.  On the day before the close of fact discovery, defendant Deangelo located several engineering drawings that predated the priority date of the asserted patents.  Deangelo sent the drawings to MES in an email stating that they may anticipate the asserted patents, but failed to supplement its interrogatory response with the new materials.  MES did not object at that time, but later moved to strike the art at the start of trial under Rule 26(e) as untimely.  The district court found the untimely disclosure unjustified and harmful to plaintiffs and excluded the drawings.  Deangelo appealed this ruling, in addition to rulings relating to claim construction, invalidity, non-infringement and Rule 11.

While it was undisputed that the drawings were disclosed more than 30 days prior to trial under 35 U.S.C. § 282, the Federal Circuit found that section 282 applied only to defenses at trial and did not relate to untimely disclosures made during discovery under Rule 26(e).  The Federal Circuit held that contention interrogatories, such as the one at-issue here seeking identification of prior art, are key aspects of patent litigation, and the supplementation requirements serve an important purpose to help parties discover facts and shape theories at trial.  As a result of defendant’s untimely disclosures, MES was unable to follow-up in discovery regarding these drawings.  The Federal Circuit found that the trial court exercised its discretion properly to exclude the evidence, and the Federal Circuit found no error. 

The Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s claim construction, finding that the constructions were consistent with plain meaning, while the rejected constructions required adoption of limitations not defined or required by the specification.  The Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s denial of Deangelo’s requests for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on the grounds of invalidity and non-infringement.  Finally, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of Deangelo’s Rule 11 motion, finding that the pre-suit investigation was adequate because plaintiff took pictures of the infringing systems and studied those pictures before filing suit. 

Practice Note:  Section 282 cannot be used as a “backdoor” to allow the use at trial of materials that were untimely disclosed during fact discovery. 

© 2014 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Partner

Jeremy T. Elman is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Miami office.  He previously practiced in the Firm’s Silicon Valley office.  Jeremy focuses his practice on intellectual property and complex commercial litigation.

305-347-6543

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.