Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC v. Tricam Industries, Inc.

Background

Little Giant challenged a March 24, 2023 order by United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright. That order denied Little Giant’s motion to strike Tricam’s invalidity contentions. The challenged contentions concerned Tricam’s prior-art references to Krause and KR ’389, as well as the use of contingent language in other invalidity contentions.

Little Giant argued that Judge Wright had clearly erred in evaluating the evidence and had improperly placed on Little Giant the burden of justifying the requested strike. Little Giant contended that Tricam instead should have been required to seek permission to amend its prior-art contentions.

Standard of Review

The district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and the applicable local rule. Under that standard, the order could be reversed only if it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Clear error requires a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made. A decision is contrary to law when it fails to apply, or misapplies, relevant statutes, case law, or procedural rules.

Ruling

Judge Menendez concluded that Judge Wright’s order was not clearly erroneous and did not misapply the law. The court found that Judge Wright had carefully reviewed the evidence concerning the Krause and KR ’389 references and had properly distinguished their context from other invalidity contentions that used contingent language. Little Giant’s objection did not show that Judge Wright’s account of the evidence was implausible when the full record was considered.

The court also rejected Little Giant’s argument about the burden of proof. It held that Judge Wright properly placed the burden on Little Giant because Little Giant was the party seeking to strike Tricam’s contentions.

Disposition

The court overruled Little Giant’s objection and affirmed the March 24, 2023 order denying Little Giant’s motion to strike Tricam’s invalidity theories.