Au New Haven, LLC v. YKK Corporation
- Gregory Woods
- 1:15-cv-03411
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Au New Haven v. YKK Corporation, Judge Woods granted plaintiffs’ application in part and said he would consider their trial request at a January 13 conference.
Au New Haven, LLC, Trelleborg Coated Systems US, Inc., and YKK Corporation and the other defendants, because the court scheduled consideration of plaintiffs’ pretrial request concerning the definition of “high end outerwear.”
What happened
In Au New Haven, LLC and Trelleborg Coated Systems US, Inc. v. YKK Corporation et al., the plaintiffs asked the court to address before trial YKK’s new definition of “high end outerwear.” The dispute concerns the scope of patent rights licensed under an agreement between the parties.
The plaintiffs argued that YKK’s definition would make the agreement’s exclusion for high-end outerwear meaningless and was not a reasonable reading of the contract. They asked the court to prevent YKK from presenting that definition to the jury and to change the planned trial schedule.
Judge Woods granted the application in part. He ordered that the court would take up the issue at the conference scheduled for January 13, 2023. The opinion does not state that the court adopted the plaintiffs’ proposed definition, canceled the January 23 trial, or otherwise resolved the dispute on the merits.
The detailed version
- Au New Haven, LLC v. YKK Corporation · No. 1:15-cv-03411
- Gregory Woods
- Jan. 9, 2023
Background
This filing was a letter from plaintiffs Au New Haven, LLC and Trelleborg Coated Systems US, Inc. concerning the parties’ patent dispute. The dispute involves an Exclusive License Agreement under which plaintiffs licensed YKK Corporation certain patent rights, while excluding “high end outerwear,” referred to in the filing as “HEO.” A bifurcated HEO trial was scheduled for January 23, 2023.
Plaintiffs stated that YKK had proposed a fourth definition of HEO on January 6, 2023. The proposed definition described HEO as outerwear sold in a luxury market by manufacturers willing to pay more for zippers laminated by Uretek in New Haven and accept the associated delivery times. Plaintiffs argued that this definition would mean there was effectively no HEO exclusion because it focused on how the zipper was made and on manufacturers’ purchasing preferences, rather than on the outerwear itself.
Plaintiffs’ Request
Plaintiffs asked the court to prevent YKK from presenting the new definition to the jury. They argued that the definition was legally impermissible because it would make the HEO exclusion meaningless and would stretch the contract’s language beyond its ordinary meaning. They also argued that the definition was not a plausible interpretation requiring a jury to consider outside evidence about the parties’ intent.
Plaintiffs requested that the court rule that no reasonable fact finder could accept YKK’s definition, adopt the reasonable meaning of HEO proposed by plaintiffs, cancel the bifurcated January 23 trial, and schedule proceedings for a full trial on the merits beginning March 6, 2023. Those requests appeared in plaintiffs’ submission; the opinion does not state that the court granted them.
Court’s Action
Judge Woods’s endorsement states: “Application granted in part. The Court will take up this issue at the conference scheduled for January 13, 2023.” The court therefore granted the application in part and scheduled consideration of the issue at the January 13 conference. The opinion does not specify which other portions of the application were denied or otherwise explain the meaning of the “in part” qualification.
The order did not, in the text provided, decide the legally proper definition of HEO, exclude YKK’s definition from the trial, adopt plaintiffs’ definition, cancel the January 23 trial, or enter judgment on the patent dispute.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.