Tower Manufacturing Corporation v. Technology Research Corporation

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION for a More Definite StatementWITH SUPPORTING MEMO

D.R.I.July 31, 2006

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MODE ISLAND TOWER MANUFACTURING 1 CORPORATION, Plaintiff, 1 1 v. 1 1 Civil Action No. 06-212-'T-DLM TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH 1 1 CORPORATION, 1 Defendant. 1 1 DEFENDANT TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH CORPORATION'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF TOWER MANUFACTURING CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Defendant Technology Research Corporation hereby objects to plaintiff Tower Manufacturing Corporation's motion for a more definite statement of the second counterclaim regarding menforceability of a patent and third counterclaim for violation of 15 U.S .C. 8 2 and patent misuses. Defendant relies upon the accompanying memorandum of law in support of its objection. Dated: July 3 1,2006 Mitchell R. ~dwardi (#69&) Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP 50 Kennedy Plaza, Suite 1 SOO Providence, RI 02903 (401) 274-2000 - tel (401) 277-9600 - fax w~rirnm~haslaw.com medwards@haslaw .corn Case 1:06-cv-00212-T-DLM Document 8 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 1 of 10 Of Counsel: William C. Bergmann Kenneth J. Sheehan Conrad J. DeWitte, Jr. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Washington Square, Suite 1 100 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-861-1 500 Facsimile: 202-86 1-1 783 wbergrnm@bakerlaw.com ksheehan@bakerlaw.com cdewitte@bakerlaw, corn ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH CORPORATION Case 1:06-cv-00212-T-DLM Document 8 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 2 of 10 CERTrnCATE OF SERVICE The undersigned here certifies that a copy of the Objection to Plaintiffs Motion for a More Defmite Statement has been served upon all counsel of record on this day of July, 2006, via U.S. Mail, First Class, postage prepaid, addressed to the: following: Thomas F. Holt, Jr., Esq. John J. Cotter, Esq. Jason P. Fiorillo, Esq. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP State Street Financia1 Center One Lincoln Street Boston, Massachusetts 02 1 1 1-2950 Bruce W. Gladstone, Esq. Cameron & Mittleman LLP 56 Exchange Terrace Providence, RI 02903 Case 1:06-cv-00212-T-DLM Document 8 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 3 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DlSTRrCT OF MODE ISLAND TOWER MANUFACTURING 1 CORPORATION, 1 1 Plaintiff, ) 1 v. 1 Civil Action No. 06-2 12-T-DLM 1 TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH 1 COWORATION, 1 ) Defendant. 1 DEFENDANT TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH CORPORATION'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TOWER MANUFACUTURING CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Defendant Technology Research Corporation ("TRC") hereby objects to plaintiff Tower Manufacturing Corporation's ("Towery') motion for a more definite statement of l X ' s second counterclaim regardimg unenforceability of a patent and third counterclaim for violation of 15 U .S.C. 4 2 and patent misuse. Tower's motion has no merit. First, the counterclaim gives notice of the claim or claims asserted so as to permit the filing of a responsive answer, which is all that is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). Indeed, Tower filed a reply to every paragraph of TRC's counterclaim on June 30,2006, evidencing its ability to answer the second and third counts of the counterclaim about which Tower now seeks a more definite statement. Second, a motion for a more definite statement is not a substitute for pre-trial discovery proceedings. At the appropriate time, Tower can avail itself of the discovery tools in the federal rules of civil procedure to obtain additional information about TRC 's counterclaim. Third, Tower filed counterclaims against TRC in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in the action styled Technolonv Research Corp. v. Tower Case 1:06-cv-00212-T-DLM Document 8 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 4 of 10 Manufacturing Corn. et al., 8:05-cv-01455-RAL-TGW ("'the Florida Action"), which are similar in format and informational content to those counterclaims filed by TRC here. See Exhibit A hereto. The Court should deny Tower's motion for a more definite statement and allow the parties to proceed with discovery after the necessary Rule 26(f) conference. I. BACKGROUND TRC manufactures and sells electrical safety devices that save lives, protect people against serious injury from electrical shock, and prevent electrical fires. On August 3,2005, TRC filed the Florida Action against Tower alleging that a Leakage Current Detector Interrupter (LCDI) that Tower manufacturers infringes TRC's U.S. Patent No. 6,292,337 ("'the '337 patent"). The '337 patent claims, among other things, a safety device in which a power circuit is opened in the event that leakage or arcing current in excess of a predetermined magnitude is detected. Arcing and leakage protection may be used in extension cords, surge strips and the power cords of appliances, including those with large power demands such as room air conditioners. On September 30,2005, Tower answered the complaint in the Florida Action and filed a counterclaim for declaratory judgment for non-infringement and patent invalidity, tortious interference with business relationships, and violation of 15 U.S.C. 2. On May 8,2006, Tower filed this action ("the Rhode Island Action") alleging that TRC infringed on Tower's U.S. Patent No. 5,943,199 ("the ' 199 patent"). On June 14,2006, TRC answered the complaint in the Rhode Island Action md filed a countercIaim for declaratory judgment for non-infkingement, patent invalidity and/or unenforceability and for violation of 15 U.S.C. fj 2 and patent misuse. TRC's counterclaims are based on the claimed invention of the ' 199 patent being obvious and well-known in the prior art and involving a mere relocation of a Case 1:06-cv-00212-T-DLM Document 8 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 5 of 10 circuit chip from one side of the device to another. Furthermore, Tower knew that the ' I99 patent was for an ALCI, not the LCD1 that TRC manufactures and sells. On June 30,2006, Tower filed a reply to all of TRC's counterclaims. 11. ARGUMENT A. THE MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT UNDER RULE 12@) IS DISFAVORED AND IS ENTIRJ3LY INAPPROPRIATE WHElRE THE MOVANT ALREADY FILED A RESPONSIm PLEADING. Courts grant motions for a more definite statement sparingly. "The motion for a more definite statement is not favored, because pleadings are to be construed liberally to do substantial justice." 2 Moore's Federal Practice 5 12.36[1]. "A motion for a more definite statement must be denied if the complaint attacked thereby, considered as a whole, fairly gives notice of the claim or claims asserted therein so as to permit the filing of a responsive answer." Canuel v. Oskoiatl, 23 F.R.D. 307,3 15 (D.R.I. 1959). The purpose of the motion is "plainly designed to strike at unintelligibility rather than lack of detail." Id.; Iacarnpo v. Hasbro. Inc., 929 F. Supp. 562,571 (D.R.I. 1996) ("A motion for a more definite statement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) challenges a pleading that is "so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading[.]"); SEC v. Digital Lkhtwave, Inc., 196 F.R.D. 698, 700 (M.D. Fla. 2000) ("The basis for granting a motion for more definite statement is unintelligibility, not lack of detail; as long as the defendant is able to respond, even if only with simple denial, in good faith, without prejudice, the complaint is deemed sufficient."). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e) permits a party to move for a more definite statement "before interposing a responsive pleading." (emphasis added).' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) states, in part: "If a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the party may move for a more definite statement before interposing a responsive pleading. . . ." - 3 - Case 1:06-cv-00212-T-DLM Document 8 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 6 of 10 Here, TRC gave sufficient notice of its counterclaims and the relief requested; so much so that Tower filed a reply to the counterclaims on June 30,2006 denying the very allegations that it must show are unintelligible and incapable of response. Tower's reply, filed before it filed a motion for a more definite statement, belies the need for the motion for a more definite ~tatement.~ The Court should deny Tower's motion for a more definite state men^.^ B. PRE-TRIAL DISCOVERY IS THE APPROPRIATJZ METHOD OF OBTAINING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT TRC'S ALLEGATIONS "A motion for a more definite statement under Rule 12(e) is not to be employed as a substitute for pre-trial discovery proceedings." Canuel v. Oskoian, 23 F.R.D. 307,3 15 (D.R.I. 1959); see also ~60 FKD. 46,48 (E.D. Wis. 1973) ("A motion for a more definite statement should not be used to test an opponent's case by requiring him to allege certain facts or retreat fiom his allegations . . . For purposes of obtaining detailed information as to the cause of action . . ., and of limiting the issues to be tried, simple and expeditious discovery methods are provided in Rules 26-37, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."). Tower should use the appropriate discovery tools to obtain additional information about TRC's allegations. See e.g., Juneau Square Corn. v. First Wisconsin National Bank of Milwaukee, 60 F.R.D. 46,48 (E.D. Wis. 1973) -- (noting that the fact that alleged co-conspirators filed a responsive pleading "is some evidence thar: one can be filed"). Here, of course, Tower itself filed a responsive pleading thereby demonstrating that a responsive pleading "can be filed" and negating the need for a motion for a more definite statement. Tower's arguments that TRC's counterclaim do not overcome Noerr-Pennington Immunity and that patent misuse is not an independently actionable tort are not arguments under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). Case 1:06-cv-00212-T-DLM Document 8 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 7 of 10 C. TOWER'S COUNTERCLAIM IN THE FLORIDA ACTION BELIES THJ3 NEED FOR A MORE DEFJNITE STATEMENT OF TRC'S COUNTERCLAIM IN THE RHODE ISLAND ACTION Tower's counterclaim in the Florida Action provides notice of the claims against TRC under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) .4 See Exhibit A hereto. TRC did the same in the Rhode Island Action. In short, TRC's counterclaims in mode Island are suficiently pled. 111. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Tower's motion for a more definite statement. Respectfully S ~ b r n i t t e d , ~ -. /t Date: July 3 1,2006 Rhode Island Bar No. 1938 Mitchell R. Edwards Rhode Island Bar No. 6942 HTNKLEY, ALLEN & SNYDER LLP 50 Kennedy Plaza, Suite 1500 Providence, RI 02903 (401) 274-2000 (401) 277-9600 wgrimm~haslaw.com medwards~hadaw.com Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) merely requires "(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends . . ., (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks." - 5 - Case 1:06-cv-00212-T-DLM Document 8 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 8 of 10 Of Counsel: William C. Bergmann Kenneth J. Sheehan Conrad J. DeWitte, Jr. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Washington Square, Suite 11 00 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-861-1 500 Facsimile: 202-861-1 783 wbergmm@bakerlaw.com ksheehan@bakerlaw. corn cdewitte@bakerlaw.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COW. Case 1:06-cv-00212-T-DLM Document 8 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 9 of 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned here certifies that a copy of the Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for a More Definite Statement has been served upon dl counsel of record on this 81" day of July, 2006, via U.S. Mail, First Class, postage prepaid, addressed to the following: Thomas F. Holt, Jr. John J. Cotter Jason P. Fiorillo Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP State Street Financial Center One Lincoln Street Boston, Massachusetts 021 1 1-2950 Bruce W. Gladstone Cameron & Mittleman LLP 5 6 Exchange Terrace Providence, RI 02903 Case 1:06-cv-00212-T-DLM Document 8 Filed 07/31/2006 Page 10 of 10