From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fanimation Design Manufacturing v. Emerson Electric, (S.D.Ind. 2003)

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
Mar 19, 2003
IP 01-0842-C-M/S (S.D. Ind. Mar. 19, 2003)

Opinion

IP 01-0842-C-M/S

March 19, 2003.


ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS


This cause is now before the Court on three motions for summary judgment filed by the defendant, Emerson Electric Co. ("Emerson"). In its first motion, Emerson alleges that its MAUI BAY wicker fan blades do not infringe the plaintiff's, Fanimation Design Manufacturing, Inc. ("Fanimation"), U.S. Design Patent No. D437,047 (the "`047 patent"), as a matter of law. In its second motion, Emerson alleges that its MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blades do not infringe Fanimation's U.S. Design Patent No. D433,118 (the "`118 patent"), as a matter of law. Emerson's third motion alleges that Fanimations `118 patent is invalid as a matter of law.

Fanimation asserts that, in all instances, summary judgment should be denied.

For the following reasons, the Court finds that Emerson's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the `047 patent should be GRANTED, its motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the `118 patent should be GRANTED, and its motion for summary judgment of invalidity should be DENIED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The following facts are undisputed: Fanimation's `047 patent issued on January 30, 2001. U.S. Design Patent No. D437,047 ("`047 Patent"). The title for the patent is "FAN BLADE." Id. The single claim of the patent reads: "The ornamental design for a fan blade, as shown and described." Id. There are five figures to the patent; Figure 1 is a top plan view of the `047 fan blade design, and Figure 2, is a bottom plan view of the `047 fan blade design. Id. Both figures are reproduced below.

Fanimation's hand-woven wicker fan blades physically embody the design claimed in the `047 patent.

Fanimation alleges that Emerson's MAUI BAY wicker fan blades infringe the `047 patented design. Pictures of the accused MAUI BAY wicker fan blades are reproduced below.

Fanimation's `118 patent issued on October 31, 2000. U.S. Design Patent No. D433,118 ("`118 Patent"). The title for the patent is "FAN BLADE." Id. The single claim of the patent reads:

"The ornamental design for a fan blade, as shown and described." Id. There are five figures to the patent; Figure 1 is a top plan view of the `118 fan blade design, and Figure 2, is a bottom plan view of the `118 fan blade design. Id. Both figures are reproduced below.

Fanimation alleges that Emerson's MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blades infringe the `118 patented design. Pictures of the accused MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blade are reproduced below.

With respect to the issue of whether the `118 patent is invalid, Fanimation's own wide oval palm leaf fan blade has existed since 1978. Frampton Aff. 3. Moreover, the inventor of the `118 patented design, Thomas C. Frampton ("Frampton"), testified in other proceedings before this Court that he had seen a fan blade with the same shape as that of the `118 patented design in wood and Plexiglas prior to his inspiration for the `118 patented design. Frampton Dep. at 30-31. Moreover, Emerson asserts that at least two prior art patents contain numerous teachings and suggestions for using a narrow oval for a fan blade design. Specifically, U.S. Patent No. 6,050,790 (the "`790 patent"), filed December 31, 1997, directed to an electric oscillating fan system; and United States Design Patent 425,610 (the "`610 patent"), filed March 3, 1999, direct to the design for a combined ceiling fan and light fixture.

II. STANDARDS A. SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment is granted "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). See also CAE Screenplates v. Heinrich Fiedler GMBH, 224 F.3d 1308, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000). An issue is genuine only if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the opposing party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A disputed fact is material only if it might affect the outcome of the suit in light of the substantive law. See id.

The moving party has the initial burden to show the absence of genuine issues of material fact. See Wollin v. Gondert, 192 F.3d 616, 620 (7th Cir. 1999); Schroeder v. Barth, 969 F.2d 421, 423 (7th Cir. 1992). This burden does not entail producing evidence to negate claims on which the opposing party has the burden of proof. See Green v. Whiteco Indus., Inc., 17 F.3d 199, 201 n. 3 (7th Cir. 1994). The party opposing a summary judgment motion bears an affirmative burden of presenting evidence that a disputed issue of material fact exists. See Wollin, 192 F.3d at 621; Gonzalez v. Ingersoll Milling Mach. Co., 133 F.3d 1025, 1031 (7th Cir. 1998); Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986); Scherer v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 975 F.2d 356, 360 (7th Cir. 1992). The opposing party must "go beyond the pleadings" and set forth specific facts to show that a genuine issue exists. See Wollin, 192 F.3d at 621; Stop-N-Go of Madison, Inc. v. Uno-Ven Co., 184 F.3d 672, 677 (7th Cir. 1999); Hong v. Children's Mem. Hosp., 993 F.2d 1257, 1261 (7th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1005 (1994). This burden cannot be met with conclusory statements or speculation, see Cliff v. Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs, 42 F.3d 403, 408 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing McDonnell v. Cournia, 990 F.2d 963, 969 (7th Cir. 1993)); accord Chapple v. Nat'l Starch Chem. Co., 178 F.3d 501, 504 (7th Cir. 1999); Weihaupt v. Am. Med. Ass'n, 874 F.2d 419, 428 (7th Cir. 1989), but only with appropriate citations to relevant admissible evidence. See Local Rule 56.1; Brasic v. Heinemann's Inc., Bakeries, 121 F.3d 281, 286 (7th Cir. 1997); Foreman v. Richmond Police Dept., 104 F.3d 950, 957 (7th Cir. 1997); Waldridge v. Am. Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 923-24 (7th Cir. 1994). Evidence sufficient to support every essential element of the claims on which the opposing party bears the burden of proof must be cited. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

In considering a summary judgment motion, a court must draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the opposing party. See Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 988 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Wollin, 192 F.3d at 621; Thomas Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 138 F.3d 277, 291 (7th Cir. 1998); Spraying Sys. Co. v. Delavan, Inc., 975 F.2d 387, 392 (7th Cir. 1992). If a reasonable fact finder could find for the opposing party, then summary judgment is inappropriate. Stop-N-Go, 184 F.3d at 677; Shields Enters., Inc. v. First Chi. Corp., 975 F.2d 1290, 1294 (7th Cir. 1992). When the standard embraced in Rule 56(c) is met, summary judgment is mandatory. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322-23; Thomas Betts, 138 F.3d at 291; Shields Enters., 975 F.2d at 1294.

B. DESIGN PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Generally, patent infringement is a two-step analysis. First the Court must construe the claimed design. See Oddzon Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1404-05 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Markman v. Westview Inst., Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("Markman I"), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ("Markman II"). "The patent claim measures the invention." Sun Hill Indus., Inc. v. Easter Unlimited, Inc., 48 F.3d 1193, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Only the novel, ornamental features of Fanimation's patented designs are protected. Oddzon Prods., 122 F.3d at 1405.

Next, the claimed design is compared to that of the accused design. Id. at 1404-05 (citing Elmer v. ICC Fabricating, Inc., 67 F.3d 1571, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1995)); see also Sun Hill Indus., 48 F.3d at 1196. In this case, Fanimation must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the patented designs as a whole are substantially similar in appearance to Emerson's accused designs. Id. at 1405. However, the designs need not be identical to find infringement. Id. Infringement is found

if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other.

Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871). Moreover, Fanimation must prove that Emerson's MAUI BAY fan blade designs appropriate the "points of novelty" in the patented designs that distinguish those patented designs from the prior art. Sun Hill Indus., 48 F.3d at 1197 (citing Shelcore, Inc. v. Durham Indus., Inc., 745 F.2d 621, 628 n. 16 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Litton Sys., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 728 F.2d 1423, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).

C. PATENT INVALIDITY

In its motion for summary judgment on invalidity, Emerson alleges that the `118 patent is invalid because its design would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of fan blade design. Design patents are subject to the same nonobviousness requirement found at 35 U.S.C. § 103 as utility patents. See In re Borden, 90 F.3d 1570, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Moreover, because a patent is presumed valid, Emerson must prove its obviousness counterclaim by clear and convincing evidence. See Avia Group Int'l, Inc. v. L.A. Gear Cal., Inc., 853 F.2d 1557, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Obviousness is a legal inquiry informed by four factual tests set out in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). See Avia Group, 853 F.2d at 1564. The four factors include: the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claimed design, the level of ordinary skill in the art when the design was made and evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness, such as commercial success, licensing or copying. See id. When making an obviousness inquiry, the Court must look to the overall appearance or the whole visual effect of the design rather than individual features. See In re Borden, 90 F.3d at 1574; In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 390 (C.C.P.A. 1982). Emerson must first point to a basic design reference in the prior art as the foundation for combining the teachings in other references. In re Borden, 90 F.3d at 1574. It must be "something in existence, the design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design." In re Rosen, 673 F.2d at 391. However, obviousness need not be based on a single reference, rather, other references may be considered to find a design obvious. In re Borden, 90 F.3d at 1574. In that case, Emerson must also show that the teachings in other prior art references should be combined with the primary reference because the designs are "so related that the appearance of certain ornamental features in one would suggest the application of those features to the other." In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 450, 109 U.S.P.Q. 50, 52 (C.C.P.A. 1956). See also In re Borden, 90 F.3d at 1575 (quoting In re Glavas); In re Rosen, 673 F.2d at 391 (quoting In re Glavas). In other words, there must be some suggestion or motivation in the prior art to modify the design features of the primary reference with features from the second reference. See In re Borden, 90 F.3d at 1574.

III. DISCUSSION A. INFRINGEMENT OF THE `047 DESIGN PATENT

Emerson alleges that its MAUI BAY wicker fan blades do not infringe the `047 design patent. The first step in an infringement analysis is claim construction. Because the `047 patent is a design patent, the Court must consider the ornamental or nonfunctional features of the claimed design. See Oddzon Prods., 122 F.3d at 1405. Emerson alleges that the design depicted in the `047 patent's drawings must limit the scope of the patent because the only claim states: "The ornamental design for a fan blade, as shown and described." `047 Patent, at 1. Emerson asserts that the `047 patented design has several features that establish its overall appearance. Specifically, Emerson claims that the `047 patented design has an open, outwardly-curved base, a radiating or branched longitudinal weave pattern, and a curved lateral pattern.

Fanimation does not dispute that the drawings in the `047 patent limit the scope of the claimed design. However, Fanimation's construction of the claimed design differs from that of Emerson in several respects. Fanimation contends that the `047 patented design depicts a fan blade that has a narrow oval shape and configuration, a pattern that consists of parallel stranded material, with a perpendicular weave pattern that is especially visible toward the distal end of the fan blade, and a base with a semi-circular opening connected by a band of the same woven material.

The Court finds that the `047 patented design consists of a narrow oval shape or a narrow egg shape, with a radiating and branched longitudinal weave pattern, a curved lateral weave pattern and a base with a three-quarter-circular opening connected by an outwardly curved band of the same material as the weave, the three-quarter-circular opening and the entire blade is banded in the same material as the weave. As shown in Figure 1 of the `047 patent, the design has a narrow oval shape, somewhat like a narrow-shaped egg, with a larger radius at the base than on the distal or far end.

The next prominent feature of the `047 patented design is the weave pattern. The longitudinal members of the pattern clearly radiate from the base or larger radius end of the oval, then have branches further into the oval that extend to the distal or smaller radius end of the oval. The Court cannot agree with Fanimation that the longitudinal members of the pattern are parallel. Moreover, the lateral members of the pattern conform to the curved opening at the base or larger radius end of the oval. This creates an almost rippled look starting at the base or larger radius end of the oval and moving through to the distal or narrower radius end of the fan blade. While at any given intersection the longitudinal member and the lateral member may be perpendicular, overall the radial and branched pattern of the longitudinal members make the weave pattern look similarly radial and branched.

In addition, the base of the `047 patented design follows the curve of the larger radius end with a three-quarter-circular opening extending into the blade. The outline of the base, the outline of the three-quarter-circular opening, and the outer edge of the entire blade are wrapped with the same material that makes up the weave.

In summary, the `047 patented design consists of a narrow oval shape or a narrow egg shape where the base end has a larger radius than the distal end, a radiating and branched longitudinal weave pattern, a curved lateral weave pattern and a base with a three-quarter-circular opening connected by an outwardly curved band wound with the same material as the weave, the three-quarter-circular opening and the entire fan blade is banded in the same material as the weave.

Turning now to the second step of the infringement analysis, the Court will address whether there is a genuine issue of material fact that Emerson's MAUI BAY wicker fan blades infringe the `047 patent. Fanimation argues that a reasonable jury could find that Emerson's MAUI BAY wicker fan blades are substantially similar to the `047 patented design. Specifically, Fanimation contends that the overall narrow oval shape of the two fan blades are "practically identical." Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (`047 Patent Infringement), at 7 ("Pl.'s Resp. `047 Patent Non-Infring."). In addition, Fanimation avers that like its `047 patented design, Emerson's MAUI BAY wicker fan blades incorporate parallel strands that have a perpendicular lateral weave pattern. Further, Fanimation argues that Emerson's MAUI BAY wicker fan blades incorporate a semi-circular open base, albeit with a metal mounting plate inside the opening. Fanimation avers that when mounted into a fan motor, an ordinary observer would perceive no visual difference in the base of the two blades. Id. These features, Fanimation alleges, are the novel features of its `047 patented design.

In contrast, Emerson argues that its MAUI BAY wicker fan blades do not infringe the `047 patent as a matter of law because unlike the `047 patented design, the MAUI BAY wicker fan blades have a perpendicular weave, an arrowhead shape and an "inwardly curved opening." Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Summ. J. Non-Infring. `047 Patent, at 12-16 ("Def.'s Mem. Non-Infring. `047 Patent"). These differences, Emerson asserts, are prominent and significant such that a reasonable jury could not conclude that Emerson's MAUI BAY wicker fan blades are substantially the same as the `047 patented design such that an ordinary observer would be deceived to purchase Emerson's design instead of the `047 patented design. Emerson avers that it is a comparison of the fan blade alone to the `047 patented design that is important, not a comparison of Fanimation's commercial embodiment of the `047 patented design in a fan motor to Emerson's fan blade in a motor. Def.'s Reply Mem. in Supp. of Summ. J. Non-Infring. `047 Patent, at 9-11 (citing Contessa Food Prods., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc., 282 F.3d 1370, 1378-81 (Fed. Cir. 2002)) ("Def.'s Reply Non-Infring. `047 Patent").

The Court finds that Fanimation has failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact that Emerson's MAUI BAY wicker fan blades infringe the `047 patented design. First, Fanimation presents no evidence that an ordinary observer would be deceived by Emerson's wicker fan blades. Second, it is evident from looking at the MAUI BAY wicker fan blades that the overall shape of the blade is substantially different from that of the `047 patented design. Unlike the `047 patented design that has a narrow oval shape or a narrow egg shape where the base end has a larger radius than the distal end, the MAUI BAY wicker fan blades have an oval shaped distal end with an inwardly-arced base. This inwardly-arced base gives the MAUI BAY wicker fan blades a completely distinct appearance from that of the gently and outwardly-curved fan blade of the `047 patented design. In addition, the weave pattern of the MAUI BAY wicker fan blades give them a tennis racket appearance, whereas the weave pattern of the `047 patented design have a rippled and branched appearance more similar to the ripples in a pond where a stone was thrown in. The Court recognizes that once the blades are in a fan motor housing, the shape of the base is not as important from the ordinary observers standpoint. However, there is still a significant difference in the weave of the MAUI BAY wicker fan blades and the `047 patented design, even as assembled in a fan motor housing. Based on these distinct differences in the overall design, a reasonable jury could not conclude that the ordinary observer would be deceived into purchasing a MAUI BAY wicker fan blade because he thought it was the `047 patented design fan blade.

The Court notes that Fanimation does not argue that the MAUI BAY wicker fan blades have anything other than parallel longitudinal members and perpendicular lateral members. Their primary argument is that the `047 patented design also has parallel longitudinal members and perpendicular lateral members. However, that is a matter of claim construction and the Court disagrees with Fanimation's construction of the claimed design.

Turning now to the points of novelty, as just discussed, the MAUI BAY wicker fan blades have a narrow oval distal end, but an inwardly-arced base end. This is distinctly different from the `047 patented design that has a narrow oval shape or a narrow egg shape where the base end has a larger radius than the distal end. The gently curved base of the `047 patented design does not come to an abrupt end like the inwardly-arced end of the MAUI BAY wicker fan blades.

Moreover, the MAUI BAY wicker fan blades have parallel longitudinal members that form a perpendicular pattern with the lateral members of the weave. The longitudinal members extend in straight lines from the base of the blade to the distal end. Similarly, the lateral members extend across the blade in straight lines from one side of the blade to the other. There is no radiation of the longitudinal members from a central point near the base or any branching further into the blade. The weave of the MAUI BAY wicker fan blades have a cross-hatched weave appearance that is significantly different from the `047 patented design with its radiating and branched longitudinal members and curved lateral members that create a wavy weave appearance.

Finally, the Emerson MAUI BAY wicker fan blades do not have an opening at the base. There is an opening in the woven material; however, that space is filled by a plate. As a result, the MAUI BAY wicker fan blades have a solid appearance rather than one that is open at one end.

The Court declines Fanimation's invitation to view the fan blade only in the context of a complete ceiling fan. The proper comparison is the allegedly infringing design to the `047 patented design during its normal useful life. See Contessa Food Prods., Inc. v. Conagra, Inc., 282 F.3d 1370, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (stating that "the comparison must extend to all ornamental features visible during normal use of the product, i.e., `beginning after completion of manufacture or assembly and ending with the ultimate destruction, loss, or disappearance of the article'" (quoting In re Webb, 916 F.2d 1553, 1557-58 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Therefore, the appearance of the blade in its entirety, not just as assembled onto a motor housing, is relevant to the question of infringement.

Based on these findings, the Court fins that Emerson's MAUI BAY wicker fan blades do not infringe the `047 patented design as a matter of law. Therefore, Emerson's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the `047 patent should be GRANTED.

B. THE `118 DESIGN PATENT 1. Claim Construction

Emerson has moved for summary judgment that its MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blades do not infringe the `118 design patent. It has also moved for summary judgment that the `118 patent is invalid. The first step in an infringement analysis is claim construction. See Oddzon Prods., 122 F.3d at 1405. Similarly, the first step in an invalidity analysis is claim construction. See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343,1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Markman I, 52 F.3d at 996 n. 7; Lemelson v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 968 F.2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Therefore, the Court will first construe the claim of the `118 patent. Because the `118 patent is a design patent, the Court must consider the ornamental or nonfunctional features of the claimed design. See Oddzon Prods., 122 F.3d at 1405.

Emerson alleges that the design depicted in the `118 patent's drawings must limit the scope of the patent because the only claim states: "The ornamental design for a fan blade, as shown and described." `118 Patent, at 1. Emerson asserts that there is no dispute about the proper scope of the `118 patented design. In its opening brief on non-infringement, Emerson identified several features that characterize the claimed design. Those features include: (1) a stem gathering mechanism that uses a band to hold together gathered leaf material, which creates an area near the base of the blade with two open triangles separated by the band of leaf material, and which creates the impression that all of the fronds of the palm leaf radiate from a single central point; (2) an accent band that tracks the outer shape of the blade creating an accent of the oval shape; (3) an uninterrupted surface both on the top and bottom portions of the blade; and (4) a continuously curved oval shape with a narrow top widening toward a larger bottom, then slightly narrowing again at the base. Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Summ. J. Non-Infring. `118 Patent, at 7-8. However, in its reply brief, Emerson adopted Fanimation's description of the claimed design from Fanimation's brief in opposition to Emerson's motion for summary judgment on invalidity. That construction incorporated the elements from Emerson's original construction for the design. Fanimation's construction in its invalidity brief reads:

an elliptical planar member . . . [that] resembles the shape of an egg with one end slightly larger than the other. The open end includes a palm leaf folded onto itself and banded to form a central stem. The surface of the blade is defined by folds, which define rays originating from the stem and terminating at the periphery of the ellipse. A smaller ellipse inside the planer member defines a frame, which interrupts the rays and emphasizes the overall elliptical shape. Two open triangular portions adjacent the stem share a curved base. The curved base is wrapped.

Pl.'s Resp. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. of Invalidity, at 3 ("Pl.'s Opp'n to Invalidity").

The Court finds that Fanimation cannot dispute that its own description in its brief in opposition to Emerson's motion for summary judgment on invalidity is correct, particularly when Emerson has agreed that it adequately describes the `118 patent's claimed design. See Amazon.com, 239 F.3d at 1351 (stating that "claims must be interpreted and given the same meaning for purposes of both validity and infringement analyses"). The Court agrees that Fanimation's description correctly describes the claimed design. Therefore, as stated above, the `118 patent design is

an elliptical planar member . . . [that] resembles the shape of an egg with one end slightly larger than the other. The larger open end includes a palm leaf folded onto itself and banded to form a central stem. The surface of the blade is defined by folds, which define rays originating from the stem and terminating at the periphery of the ellipse. A smaller ellipse inside the planar member defines a frame, which interrupts the rays and emphasizes the overall elliptical shape. Two open triangular portions adjacent the stem share a curved base. The curved base is wrapped.

Pl.'s Opp'n to Invalidity, at 3.

2. Infringement of the `118 Patent

Having construed the single claim of the patent, the Court now turns to Emerson's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. Fanimation argues that a reasonable jury could find that Emerson's MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blades are substantially similar to the `118 patented design. With respect to the ordinary observer test specifically, Fanimation contends that the overall narrow oval shape and configuration of the `118 patented design and the MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blades are substantially similar. Pl.'s Resp. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. of Non-Infringement, at 7 ("Pl.'s Opp'n to `118 Patent Non-Infring."). In addition, both fan blades are nearly identical in height and width. Id. Furthermore, Emerson's MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blades incorporate palm material that radiates from a region adjacent the center of the base or proximal end of the blade. Id. Fanimation also asserts that when the `118 patented design fan blades and the MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blades are each incorporated into a fan motor, an ordinary observer would not notice the difference in the bases of the two blades. Id. at 7-8.

Emerson argues that an ordinary observer would notice the differences in the MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blades and not mistake them for the `118 patented design. Specifically, the shape of the MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blade is significantly different because it does not have an egg-shaped appearance. Def.'s Reply on Non-Infringement, at 5. Emerson's blade has a inwardly-curved unwrapped base that is completely different from the outwardly-curved, leaf-wrapped base of the `118 patented design. Id. In addition, Emerson argues that any similarity in height and width of its MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blades to the `118 patented design blade or Fanimation's commercial embodiment of the `118 patented design is irrelevant because the patent does not describe a particular dimension for the fan blade. Id. at 6. Furthermore, Emerson avers that the tropical leaf appearance on its blade uses a woody stem where the fronds do not radiate from a common stem at the base of the blade. Id. at 7. The MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blade has a spine down the middle of the blade from which the fronds radiate. Id. Moreover, Emerson argues that Fanimation concedes that there are notable difference between the MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blade base and the `118 patented design. Namely, unlike the two open triangular portions adjacent the stem that share a curved, wrapped base of the `118 patented design, Emerson's MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blades have an inwardly curved base without triangular openings or wrapping. Id. at 7-8. Finally, Emerson contends that its tropical leaf fan blades do not have "[a] smaller ellipse inside the planar member [that] defines a frame, which interrupts the rays and emphasizes the overall elliptical shape" of the blade. Pl.'s Opp'n to Invalidity, at 3.

The Court finds that Fanimation has presented no evidence that there is a material question of fact on whether an ordinary observer would mistake the Emerson MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blades for the `118 patented design. The Court notes that Fanimation's entire argument is based on a visual comparison of the accused fan blade and its design; there is no supporting evidence of an ordinary observer. In addition, Fanimation concedes, as it must, that Emerson's MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blades have a significantly different base. Notwithstanding Fanimation's argument that the Court should consider the look of the blades mounted into a motor, the Court agrees that the MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blades have significantly different bases that would not deceive an ordinary observer.

Moreover, the entire look of the `118 patented design is defined by the gentle egg shape, the gentle folds of the palm leaf that radiate from the central stem at the base, and "the smaller ellipse inside the planar member [that] defines a frame, which interrupts the rays and emphasizes the overall elliptical shape." Pl.'s Opp'n to Invalidity, at 3. In contrast, the MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blades have an elliptical proximal end, but an inwardly-arced base end, which gives the MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blades a blunted appearance rather than the gentle curve appearance of the `118 patented design. In addition, where the MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blades have a thick stem down the center of the blade with rays extending from this central longitudinal member, the `118 patented design requires gentle folds of palm leaf that radiate from the central stem at the base of the blade. This difference makes the MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blade appear heavier and thicker than the `118 patented design. Furthermore, the MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blade does not have a smaller member inside the fan blade that defines a frame and interrupts the rays. The lack of this feature in the MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blade also gives it a less sleek appearance than that of the `118 patented design. These later two characteristics that really define the appearance of each of the MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blade and the `118 patented design, respectively, are not changed by mounting the blades into a housing.

The Court finds that without evidence of deception of an ordinary observer and with this analysis, Fanimation has not shown evidence of a genuine issue of material fact on the ordinary observer test.

The Court also agrees with Emerson that its MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blades do not appropriate the points of novelty of the `118 patented design. Fanimation argues that the narrow oval size and configuration, the radiating pattern from a central stem at the base, and a base with triangular open portions are the novel elements of its design. Pl's Opp'n to `118 Patent Non-Infring., at 9; Pl.'s Opp'n to Invalidity, at 9. However, as discussed above, the MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blade does not have a narrow oval size and configuration. Although the proximal end of the Emerson blade has a narrow oval shape, the base end has an inwardly-arced base completely opposite to the outwardly curved base end of the `118 patented design. Furthermore, the rays of the MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blade radiate from a longitudinally aligned "woody" member rather than radiating from the central stem at the base, like the `118 patented design. Finally, the base end of the MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blade does not have two triangular-shaped open portions similar to the portions required by the `118 patented design.

In summary, Fanimation has failed to show a genuine issue of material fact exists on whether Emerson's MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blade would deceive an ordinary observer, or whether the blade appropriates the points of novelty of the `118 patented design. Therefore, Emerson's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the `118 patent should be GRANTED.

3. Invalidity of the `118 Patent

Notwithstanding the Court's grant of summary judgment of non-infringement of the `118 patent in favor of Emerson, the Court shall address Emerson's motion for summary judgment of invalidity because it is raised as a counterclaim for declaratory judgment. In such instances, the Court must treat the claim independently and rule on Emerson's contemporaneously filed motion for summary judgment of invalidity. See Cardinal Chem. Co. v. Morton Int'l, Inc., 508 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1993); Gen. Elec. Co. v. Nintendo Co., 179 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

a. Fanimation's Motion to Clarify the Factual Record

At the outset, the Court must address Fanimation's motion to clarify the record on the invalidity issue. Emerson's opening brief on summary judgment suggested that Fanimation's wide oval palm leaf fan blade was not before the patent examiner when the `118 patent issued because that reference is neither listed on the `118 patent nor referenced in the `118 patent's prosecution history. Therefore, Emerson argues, the Court need not give deference to the Patent Trademark Office's ("PTO") decision to award the `118 patent.

In its brief in opposition to Emerson's motion on invalidity, Fanimation did not dispute that its wide oval palm leaf fan blade is not mentioned as prior art in the `118 patent's prosecution history or on its face. However, Fanimation asserted that the `118 patent was a "Continued Prosecution Application" or "CPA," derived from parent patent U.S. Design Patent No. D437,406 (the `406 patent"). Pursuant to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") all information disclosure statements filed in applications prior to a CPA shall be considered by the examiner. Pl.'s Opp'n to Invalidity, at 5 (citing MPEP § 201.06). The disclosure statement for the `406 patent identified Fanimation's wide oval palm leaf fan blade. Therefore, Fanimation asserted that it is clear that the patent examiner considered its wide oval palm leaf fan blade when she issued the `118 patent. Id. at 7.

In its reply brief, Emerson pointed out to the Court that the `118 patent was not in fact a CPA, but it was a "divisional application" that is not subject to MPEP § 201.06. Def.'s Reply on Invalidity, at 2-6. Apparently, after receiving Emerson's brief, Fanimation realized its error and sought to correct the factual record by filing a motion to clarify.

Although captioned as a motion to clarify the factual record, Fanimation's motion actually seeks two things: 1) to clarify the record on whether or not the `118 patent was a CPA; and 2) to add facts to indicate whether or not the patent examiner considered Fanimation's wide oval palm leaf fan blade when she issued the `118 patent. With respect to its first assertion, Fanimation's motion is GRANTED. The factual record is clarified by Fanimation's admission that the `118 patent was not a CPA, but was a divisional application filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.53(b).

Because Fanimation sought to correct facts in the record on summary judgment, technically the pleading is more properly labeled a surreply. See S.D. Ind. L.R. 56.1(d). Therefore, the Court shall treat Fanimaiton's motion to correct the factual record as a surreply. Although generally a party must seek leave to file pleadings after a surreply, the Court will not prejudice either Emerson or Fanimation for filing additional pleadings on this matter.

Emerson challenges the propriety of Fanimation's evidence on the second assertion contained in Fanimation's motion to clarify. The Court shall treat Emerson's challenge as a motion to strike. Specifically, Fanimation asserts through an affidavit of its attorney, Daniel L. Boots ("Boots"), that the patent examiner of the `118 patent, Lisa Lichtenstein ("Lichtenstein"), confirmed during a telephone conversation with Boots that she did, in fact, consider the prior art references cited in the `406 parent case during her examination of the divisional application that matured into the `118 patent. Boots Aff. 11. Emerson argues that Boots' affidavit is not based on personal knowledge and is hearsay. Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Mot. to Clarify the Factual Rec., at 3 ("Def.'s Resp. to Mot. to Clarify"). Moreover, Emerson asserts that Boots' conversation with Lichtenstein is in direct contravention of federal regulations and of the PTO's internal guidelines. Id. at 2 (citing 15 C.F.R. § 15.11-18; MPEP § 1701).

In response, Fanimation asserts that

[c]ounsel's affidavit, the accuracy of which was confirmed by Examiner Lichtenstein, identifies Examiner Lichtenstein's standard practice when examining a divisional patent application. In accordance with MPEP § 609, Examiner Lichtenstein considers the information in a parent application when examining a continuing application (such as a divisional). The affidavit provides the truth; and, since Examiner Lichtenstein confirmed its accuracy, it cannot be construed as hearsay.

Pl.'s Reply on Mot. to Clarify, at 1.

The Court finds that Lichtenstein's statements are hearsay; therefore, the statements are not properly considered on summary judgment. Fanimation contends that the statements are not hearsay because Lichtenstein confirmed the accuracy of them. However, the relevant portion of Boots' affidavit reflect that Lichtenstein's confirmation is hearsay itself. The affidavit states, in relevant part:

On December 19, 2002, I provided a copy of this Affidavit to Examiner Lichtenstein to allow her to confirm the accuracy of my memorialization of our December 18th conversation. On December 23, 2002, I had another telephone conversation with Examiner Lichtenstein, during which she confirmed the accuracy of the above facts [sic] recitation concerning her examination of the `118 patent.

Boots Aff. 12. The Federal Rules of Evidence make clear that hearsay within hearsay is only admitted if each part of the combined statement conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule. Fed.R.Evid. 805. There is no exception to the hearsay rule for this statement by Lichtenstein.

Moreover, there is little evidence that Fanimation tried to comport with the requirements for admissibility of either statement by Lichtenstein under the residual exception to the hearsay rule. The residual exception to the hearsay rule requires

that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.

Fed.R.Evid. 807. Here, the parties seem to agree that Lichtenstein's comment is evidence of a material fact. However, based on the MPEP guidelines it is apparent that inquiries regarding evidence considered during prosecution by persons outside the PTO are discouraged. MPEP § 1701. Furthermore, the MPEP specifically allows for testimony by examiners under certain guidelines. Id. § 1701.01. See also 15 C.F.R. Part 15; W. Elec. Co. v. Piezo Tech., Inc., 860 F.2d 428, 433 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (finding that "[i]t is permissible under [United States v.] Morgan[, 313 U.S. 409 (1941)] and its progeny to determine from an examiner whether a party had submitted certain information, or whether specific prior art was before the examiner"). It is clear that those guidelines were not followed in this instance.

For these reasons, the Court finds that Lichtenstein's statements are hearsay and should not be considered on summary judgment. Therefore, the second portion of Fanimation's motion to clarify is DENIED. The Court shall not consider Boots' representations of Lichtenstein's statements for purposes of summary judgment. The Court notes that this ruling affects the weight of Emerson's evidence on invalidity, but does not change Emerson's burden to show obviousness by clear and convincing evidence. See Am. Hoist Derrick Co. v. Sowa Sons, Inc., 725 F.2d 1350, 1360 (Fed. Cir.) (stating that when a defendant that attacks the validity of a patent relies upon prior art not considered by the PTO, "[t]he evidence may . . . carry more weight and go further toward sustaining the attacker's unchanging burden"), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 821 (1984).

b. The Merits of Emerson's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity

The Court now turns to the merits of Emerson's motion for summary judgment of invalidity. Emerson asserts that the `118 patent is invalid for obviousness. Specifically, Emerson argues that Fanimation's own wide oval palm leaf fan blade, on sale for more than a year prior to the effective filing date of the `118 patent, comprises the same basic design features as the `118 patented design. Emerson asserts that upon review of the `118 patent prosecution history, it is not evident whether or not the patent examiner had this fan blade before it. Therefore, Emerson suggests, there is no need to give deference to the PTO's decision to award the `118 patent to Fanimation. Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. Invalidity, at 7-8 (citing Am. Hoist Derrick Co., 725 F.2d at 1359-60. In any event, Emerson avers that the prior art is replete with suggestions for using a narrow oval design for a fan blade generally, and a palm leaf fan blade in particular. Id. at 8-11. Specifically, Emerson cites the fan blade element taught by U.S. Patent No. 6,050,790 (the "`790 patent") and the fan blade design taught by U.S. Design Patent No. 425,610 (the "`610 patent"). Id. at 9-10. Moreover, Emerson avers that the inventor of the `118 patented design testified in prior litigation before this Court that his use of a narrow oval design feature in the Fanimation narrow oval fan blade design was inspired by earlier prior art fan blade designs. Id. at 11 (citing Frampton Dep., at 30-31).

In contrast, Fanimation asserts that Emerson ignores the standard for finding a patent invalid: clear and convincing evidence. Regardless of whether or not the examiner considered Fanimation's wide oval palm leaf fan blade as prior art, Fanimation asserts that the `118 patented design is not rendered obvious by that reference in combination with the `790 patent and `610 patents. The overall image of the `118 patented design is different from that of both the `790 patent and the `610 patent. Fanimation avers that Frampton's testimony merely supports its argument that the claimed design in nonobvious because he discusses the "total image" of the blade, not specific aspects. Fanimation also argues that there are prominent features of the `790 patent and the `610 patent that teach away from the `118 patented design that must be considered in the invalidity analysis. Based on these teachings, Fanimation asserts that there is a question of fact whether or not the prior art designs would suggest or motivate a designer skilled in the art to make the combination. As a result, Fanimation avers, Emerson's motion for summary judgment should be denied.

The Court finds that Emerson has not shown by clear and convincing evidence that the `118 patent is invalid for obviousness. The Court must consider the four Graham factors in its analysis: the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claimed design, the level of ordinary skill in the art when the design was made and evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness, such as commercial success, licensing or copying. See Avia Group, 853 F.2d at 1564. When making an obviousness inquiry, the Court must look to the overall appearance or the whole visual effect of the design rather than individual features. See In re Borden, 90 F.3d at 1574; In re Rosen, 673 F.2d at 390. Emerson must first point to a basic design reference in the prior art as the foundation for combining the teachings in other references. In re Borden, 90 F.3d at 1574. It must be "something in existence, the design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design." In re Rosen, 673 F.2d at 391. Other references may be considered to find a design obvious. In re Borden, 90 F.3d at 1574. Because that is the case here, Emerson must also show that the teachings in other prior art references should be combined with the primary reference because the designs are "so related that the appearance of certain ornamental features in one would suggest the application of those features to the other." In re Glavas, 230 F.2d at 450. See also In re Borden, 90 F.3d at 1575 (quoting In re Glavas); In re Rosen, 673 F.2d at 391 (quoting In re Glavas). In other words, there must be some suggestion or motivation in the prior art to modify the design features of the primary reference with features from the second reference. See In re Borden, 90 F.3d at 1574. The Court must apply the Graham tests to the arguments presented here to determine whether there is a question of fact.

The Court notes that neither party presents evidence of "objective factors of nonobviousness." Therefore, the factor is neutral. See Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 960 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Medtronic, Inc. v. Intermedics, Inc., 799 f.2d 734, 739 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).

First, the Court must look at the patented design at issue, the prior art at issue and the differences between the patented design and the prior art. As discussed in Section B.1. above, the `118 patented design has seven required design features: 1) an elliptical planar member; 2) shaped like an egg with one end slightly larger than the other; 3) the larger open end has a palm leaf folded onto itself and banded to form a central stem; 4) the folds define rays originating from the stem and terminating at the periphery of the ellipse; 5) a smaller ellipse inside the periphery defines a frame and interrupts the rays; 6) two open portions are adjacent to and share a curved base; and 7) the curved base is wrapped. Fanimation asserts that three of these features distinguish the design from the prior art: the narrow oval configuration, the radiating pattern from a central stem and the base with triangular open portions.

Fanimation's wide oval palm leaf fan blade discloses many of these features. As pictured here, the wide oval palm leaf fan blade is a planar member with a distorted oval shape.

The bottom end of the fan blade has a much wider radius than the distal end of the blade. However, the body of the fan is made from palm leaf folded onto itself and banded to form a central stem. The surface defined by the folds create rays that originate from the stem and terminate at the periphery of the blade. The shape of the blade is accented with a thin band of material inside the periphery that defines a frame and interrupts the rays. The base of the wide oval leaf palm blade also has two open triangular portions that share a curved base. The curved base is wrapped. Therefore, Fanimation's wide oval palm leaf fan blade teaches at least six of the design features of the `118 patent including a shape that is larger at the base end than the distal end, a palm leaf folded onto itself and banded to form a central stem at the larger end, folds that define rays originating from the stem and terminating at the periphery of the shape, a smaller shaped piece inside the periphery that defines a frame and interrupts the rays, two open portions that are adjacent to and share a curved base, and a wrapped base.

The only feature that distinguishes the `118 patented design is the narrow oval size and configuration. Fanimation's wide oval palm leaf fan blade has a much wider base such that the overall shape appears more like a triangle than the egg shape of the `118 patented design. This difference gives the `118 patented design a sleeker and more modern appearance.

Emerson argues that changing the shape of the wide oval palm leaf fan blade is not novel. Emerson avers that Frampton's admission that he had seen the `118 patented design shape in the prior art supports this assertion. In addition, the prior art is replete with narrow oval fan blade designs. For these designs, Emerson points to the `790 patent and the `610 patent. The `790 patent is an apparatus patent entitled: "ELECTRIC WAVING FAN WITH OSCILLATING MULTI-DIRECTION FAN VANE ELEMENT." `790 Patent, at 1. The `790 patent describes the parts of a fan assembly that moves a single fan vane element, or fan blade, simultaneously in two directions such that the vane element or blade moves with a waving motion. Id. The vane element configurations are disclosed through drawings and the following paragraph in the specification:

FIGS. 17(a) through 17(f) disclose various configurations of fan vane elements that can be used with the motion generating apparatus of the present invention. In addition to the various shapes, it is desirable to use specific materials as well. For example, the use of plastic frames has been found to be advantageous. The plastic is preferably an engineering plastic which is easily moldable. The vane is preferably covered in, or comprised of, a material such as paper, silk or plastic. In addition, natural materials for the vane can be used, such as feathers, bone, palm leaves, straw, or cattail leaves. The invention also contemplates the use of folding fans, including a rod connected thereto for insertion into the shaft in the output conjunction.

Id. col. 8, ll. 52-64. Figures 17(a) through 17(f) discloses the following shapes:

One figure of an alternative embodiment of the invention appears to have a narrow oval shaped vane element or blade. Id. Fig. 22(B). Figure 22(b) is reproduced below.

The `790 patent clearly discloses fan blade elements of varying dimensions, including modified oval shapes. In addition, the `790 patent discloses the use of palm leaves for the covering of the frame. Therefore, arguably, the `790 patent discloses the value of varying the width and length of the fan blade. However, none of the disclosures depicts a narrow egg-shaped blade; only one teaches a narrow oval. Furthermore, three of the vane elements or fan blades pictured in the `790 patent are fan-shaped and appear more similar to the wide oval palm leaf fan blade than the `118 patented design. See id. Figs. 17(B), 17(D), 17(F). If anything, the fan-like shapes teach away from the narrow egg-shaped blade of the `118 patented design. Moreover, of the remaining three vane element shapes disclosed in the `790 patent, one is a circle, id. Fig. 17(A), one has a violin shape, id. Fig. 17(C), and one is shaped like the end of an oar, id. 17(E). At most, these shapes teach that a variety of shapes for fan blades were contemplated by designers.

The `610 patent discloses a design for a ceiling fan and lighting fixture. `610 Patent, at 1.

The `610 patented design is comprised of three long narrow oval fan blades attached to a combined fan motor housing and light unit. The combined fan motor housing and light unit is an upside-down, blunt-nosed cone. A ribbed design is evident on the cone feature not quite halfway down the cone, nearer the top. The ribbing encircles the cone. Fanimation argues that the entire design resembles an airplane propeller; the Court cannot disagree. In addition, although the fan blades have a narrow oval shape, with a wider base radius than distal radius, they are very long in proportion to the diameter of the cone's base or to the width of the blade itself. The length of the narrow oval blades of the `610 is in stark contrast to the rather short proportion of length to width of the `118 patented design. Therefore, although the `610 patent teaches a narrow oval fan blade, the length of the narrow oval blades of the `610 patented design teaches away from the more egg-proportioned blade of the `118 patented design.

Second, the Court must assess the level of skill in the art of designing fan blades. The only evidence either party presents of the level of skill in the art of designing fan blades is Frampton's testimony. During his deposition in another case about the `118 patented design, Frampton testified as follows:

Q What did you use as the source of inspiration for what you call your narrow oval design?

A As far as what, the shape?

Q Yes.

A Just an interesting shape.

Q You had never seen a fan blade with that shape before?

A I probably have, yeah.

Q Where have you seen a fan blade with that shape before?

A I think I have seen some wooden blades that shape, some plexiglass [sic].
Q So your claim here isn't the raw shape B it's the shape in conjunction with the designs that are also depicted in the drawings, right?

A The claim is the total image of the blade.

Frampton Dep. at 30-31. Presumably, both parties consider Frampton a man of ordinary skill in the art of fan blade design at the time of the invention. This testimony evidences that Frampton used other blade designs when he was developing the `118 patented design. Moreover, Frampton admits to seeing blades similarly shaped to the `118 patented design in two other materials. In addition, Frampton states that it is the total image of the `118 patented design that he sought to claim.

In light of the evidence presented here, there is a question of fact about whether the two secondary references, the `790 patent and the `610 patent, teach changing the shape of the wide oval palm leaf fan blade to achieve the `118 patented design. The Court is mindful that the `118 patent is presumed valid. On the current record, Fanimation's wide oval palm leaf fan blade was not before the PTO. However, the wide oval palm leaf fan blade shape and the shape of the `610 patented design teach away from the egg-shaped `118 patented design. Furthermore, the `790 patent dicloses a narrow oval shape among many shapes, but does not disclose the egg-shaped design of the `118 patent. In addition, Frampton's testimony is probative of what he looked to when creating the `118 patented design, but there is no evidence that a blade of the same appearance, including the shape, existed at the time of the design. It is the totality of the design, not the individual elements that must be considered in making the invalidity analysis.

In summary, Fanimation has shown enough evidence that the primary and at least one of the secondary references teach away from the `118 patented design to create a material question of fact on whether or not the prior art teaches or would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art of fan blade design to create the `118 patented design. Emerson's motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the `118 patent should be DENIED.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Emerson's MAUI BAY wicker fan blades do not infringe Fanimation's `047 patent. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of the `047 patent is GRANTED. Further, the Court finds that Emerson's MAUI BAY tropical leaf fan blades do not infringe Fanimation's `118 patent. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of the `118 patent is GRANTED. In addition, the Court finds that there is a question of fact on whether the `118 patent is invalid for obviousness. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment of invalidity is DENIED. Furthermore, the defendant's motion for a hearing on these summary judgment motions is DENIED.

The Court also ruled on the plaintiff's motion to clarify the record within this order. That motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Fanimation Design Manufacturing v. Emerson Electric, (S.D.Ind. 2003)

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
Mar 19, 2003
IP 01-0842-C-M/S (S.D. Ind. Mar. 19, 2003)
Case details for

Fanimation Design Manufacturing v. Emerson Electric, (S.D.Ind. 2003)

Case Details

Full title:FANIMATION DESIGN MANUFACTURING, INC., Plaintiff, v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO.…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

Date published: Mar 19, 2003

Citations

IP 01-0842-C-M/S (S.D. Ind. Mar. 19, 2003)