Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc v. Arctic Cat, Inc

Background

Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc. and BRP U.S. Inc. (collectively, BRP) sued Arctic Cat Inc. and Arctic Cat Sales Inc. (collectively, Arctic Cat) for allegedly infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,213,669 (the ’669 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 7,124,847 (the ’847 Patent), both concerning snowmobile frames. Before trial, the court granted BRP summary judgment that Arctic Cat infringed the ’847 Patent.

After a three-week trial, the jury found that Arctic Cat infringed claims 88 and 92–95 of the ’669 Patent. It also found all asserted claims of both the ’669 and ’847 Patents invalid. The jury made no findings on damages or willfulness because the court’s instructions did not require those findings unless a valid patent claim was infringed.

Post-Trial Motions

The parties filed motions for judgment as a matter of law, which ask the court to set aside a jury finding when the evidence cannot reasonably support it, and motions for a new trial. Arctic Cat sought judgment that it did not infringe the ’669 Patent. BRP sought judgment that the asserted claims of the ’669 and ’847 Patents were not invalid. Each side also raised additional challenges concerning invalidity and the trial proceedings.

Infringement of the ’669 Patent

The court denied Arctic Cat’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. It held that BRP presented enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find infringement of claims 88 and 92–95, including evidence that the accused snowmobiles had the claimed “seat position defined by the seat.” The court rejected Arctic Cat’s argument that BRP needed numerical measurements for that limitation because neither the claims nor the court’s claim construction required such measurements.

The court also rejected Arctic Cat’s argument based on a certificate of correction issued for the ’669 Patent. It held that Arctic Cat had not preserved the argument in its earlier motion for judgment as a matter of law and, independently, had not applied the correct legal standard for determining whether uncorrected patent claims could be asserted. The court also denied Arctic Cat’s conditional motion for a new trial on ’669 Patent infringement.

Invalidity of the ’669 Patent

The court denied BRP’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law that claims 88 and 92–95 of the ’669 Patent were not invalid. It concluded that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s findings that the claims were indefinite and that claim 88 was anticipated by the Hetteen prototype snowmobile.

For indefiniteness, the court found sufficient evidence that a skilled person might not understand the scope of “seat position defined by the seat” with reasonable certainty. The evidence included inconsistent measurements in the patent’s figures of a standard rider and uncertainty about the meaning of “natural operating position.” For anticipation, the court found sufficient evidence that the Hetteen prototype was publicly accessible before the patent’s priority date and contained every element of claim 88.

The court denied Arctic Cat’s motions concerning invalidity of the ’669 Patent, including its conditional motion for a new trial on enablement. It also denied Arctic Cat’s request to amend the judgment to add an obviousness finding and its alternative request for a new trial on obviousness. The court noted that the jury had not found claims 92–95 anticipated or obvious and that the evidence supported the jury’s obviousness finding regarding those claims.

Invalidity of the ’847 Patent

The court denied BRP’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law concerning claims 1 and 6–8 of the ’847 Patent. It found sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that claims 1 and 6 were anticipated by the T/S Mod snowmobile and that claims 1 and 6–8 were obvious.

The court also denied BRP’s motion for a new trial based on the jury instructions and special-verdict form. The instruction that the jury “should” consider objective evidence of non-obviousness was not misleading in context, and any possible error did not probably affect the verdict. The verdict form’s grouping of asserted claims also did not justify a new trial because the jury instructions told jurors to consider each claim separately. The court denied Arctic Cat’s conditional motion for a new trial on indefiniteness because the evidence supported the conclusion that Arctic Cat had not proved the relevant claims indefinite.

Damages and Willfulness

Because the post-trial rulings did not result in a finding that Arctic Cat infringed a valid patent claim, the court concluded that a new trial on damages and willfulness was not warranted. The court stated that if later proceedings resulted in a finding of liability for infringement of a valid claim, BRP would be entitled to a new trial on damages and willfulness.

Order

The court ordered that all three listed post-trial motions be denied: defendants’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, motion to alter or amend the judgment, and conditional motion for a new trial; plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial; and plaintiffs’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. The jury’s verdict therefore remained in place.