Degelman v. Pro-Tech - Verdict

Case 6:06-cv-06346-JWF Document 220 Filed 03/08/13 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Degelman Industries, Ltd.,

Plaintiff, v.

Pro-Tech Welding & Fabrication, Inc. and Michael Weagley,

Defendant ( s) .

06-CV-6346 VERDICT FORM

In accordance with the Court's instructions, please answer the following questions. Your answers for each question must be unanimous.


FINDINGS ON DEGELMAN'S CLAIMS

DEGELMAN'S UTILITY AND DESIGN PATENT CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS

1. For each of the following products, has Degelman proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants, Pro-Tech Welding and Fabrication, Inc. ("Pro-Tech"), and/or Michael P. Weagley ("Weagley"), has infringed Claim 1 of the '576 Patent?

(Please answer in each cell with a "Y" for "yes" (for Degelman), or with an "N" for "no" for each Defendant.)

.

· Accused Defe.ndant ·ProduCt Pr.o-Tech Welding and 'li MichlicJ P. Weagley Fabrication, ~nc.

SPL Loader Ve> Ye-> SPB Backhoe ie.> res SPS Skidsteer Ye-.> _ye> SPC Compact Yes YE>

IST Loader Yt:5 ye; 1ST Backhoe Y~i Ye~ 1ST Skidsteer J'E> YGJ PBS Pullback fE:f ye~

F(L Foldout Y~> t(~>

FTF Forklift y'_&> y-e> SBL Switchblade Loader '(e> Ye5

SSB Switchblade Backhoe ~IZ5 vy;_ II::

SBS Switchblade Skidsteer res ye5


Super Duty Loader

- 2-


2. For each of the following products, has Degclman proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants, Pro-Tech and/or Weagley, has infringed Claim 2 of the '576 Patent?

(Please answer in each cell with a "Y" for «yes" (for Degelman), or with an "N" for "no" for each Defendant.)

Accused Defendant Product Pro-Tech Welding and

Michael P. ¥leagle1; Fabrication, Inc.

SPL Loader '(~ VeA I.

SPB Backhoe ve:s ~/eA I

SPS Skidsteer '{G> [;£J SPC Compact y~..s k/t1

IST Loader ye;s (;;b.; IST Backhoe ye5 ~~ 1ST Skidsteer '{£:> CfM PBS Pullback '{€:5 lf~ ~ I

F~L Foldout ye; lj_!VJ FTF Forklift Y~5

I

Vtv.J SBL Switchblade Loader re> {;/b)

SSB Switchblade Backhoe ye; ~~ SBS Switchblade Skidsteer '{€.) ~M

Super Duty Loader v~> rt::' {;~ I

.., - j -


3. For each of the following products, has Degelman proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants, Pro-Tech and/or Weagley, has infringed Claim 3 of the '576 Patent?


Accused Defendant Product

SPL Loader

SPB Backhoe

SPS Skidsteer

SPC Compact

1ST Loader

IST Backhoe

1ST Skidsteer

PBS Pullback , F$L Foldout

FTF Forklift

SBL Switchblade Loader

SSB Switchblade Backhoe

SBS Switchblade Skidsteer

Super Duty Loader

Pro-Tech Welding and Fabrication, Inc.

-4 -

Michael P. Weagley





SPL Loader

SPB Backhoe

SPS Skidsteer

SPC Compact

1ST Loader

IST Backhoe

IST Skidsteer

PBS Pullback

FTF Forklift




Super Duty Loader


11 0/V ..,

- 5-

Michael P. Weagley



(Please answer in each cell with a "Y" for "yes" (for Degelman), or with an ''N" for "no" for each Defendant.)


SPL Loader

SPB Backhoe

SPS Skidsteer

SPC Compact

1ST Loader

IST Backhoe

IST Skidsteer

PBS Pullback

FTF Forklift




Super Duty Loader


- 6-

Michael .P. Weagley




'


Michael P. Weagley Fabrication, Inc.

SPL Loader Jj~ Jj_t4

SPB Backhoe (J p /()A .., .

SPS Skidsteer ~!JU 1;/u SPC Compact UY y_f)A

1ST Loader .I lJ~ L;{k

IST Backhoe ,I " C/o.A ~VP'Y

I I

1ST Skidsteer 11~ {/u PBS Pullback ~14 v~

p F:IJL Foldout 'VP--1 Vu FTF Forklift uj!A ~vu

SBL Switchblade Loader (jQ/J v~ SSB Switchblade Backhoe Jl4M I

u~ SBS Switchblade Skidsteer VM L;I/.J

Super Duty Loader VIr 'fr I /~ J

- 7-



(Please answer in each cell with a "Y" for "yes" (for Degelman), or with an "N'' for "no" for each Defendant.)


SPL Loader

SPB Backhoe

SPS Skidsteer

SPC Compact

IST Loader

IST Backhoe

1ST Skidsteer

PBS Pullback

FBL Foldout

FTF Forklift




Super Duty Loader


- 8 -

Michael P. Weagley


8. For each of the following products, has Degelman proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants, Pro-Tech and/or Wcagley, has infringed Claim 8 ofthe '576 Patent?



SPL Loader

SPB Backhoe

SPS Skidsteer

SPC Compact

IST Loader

IST Backhoe

IST Skidsteer

PBS Pullback

p FI3L Foldout

FTF Forklift




Super Duty Loader


- 9-

Michael P. Weagley


9. For each of the following products, has Degclman proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants, Pro-Tech and/or Weagley, has infringed the '097 Patent?


Accused Defendant Product · Pro-Tech Welding and Michael P. Weagley

Fabrication, Inc.

SPL Loader NO 1/tf SPB Backhoe i/0 ;V()

r

SPS Skidsteer /v'O ;vo SPC Compact ;flO 11/0

1ST Loader )Jo /11(/ 1ST Backhoe )VO jV() IST Skidsteer /Vo N~ PBS Pullback ;vd jt((J

- 10-


-

10. For each of the following products, has Degelman proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants, Pro-Tech and/or Weagley, has infringed the '128 Patent?

(Please answer in each cell with a "Y" for "yes" (for Degelman), or with an "N" for ' 'no" for each Defendant.)

.. -~- - - - - - - - -- -- - ~: ._



SPL Loader jJ() No SPB Backhoe IJO No SPS Skidsteer No NO SPC Compact NO No

IST Loader /J() ;Jo IST Backhoe No No IST Skidsteer ;VO f'/d' PBS Pullback tid jVd

p

/JO !Vo FJL Foldout

FTF Forklift t/b NO

- 11 -


11. For each of the following products, has Degelman proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants, Pro-Tech and/or Weagley, has infringed the '129 Patent?


Accused Defendant Product Pro-Tech Welding and Michael P. Weagley

Fabrication, Inc. . ..

SPL Loader No fJI

SPB Backhoe tfCJ j{d SPS Skidsteer jJO jl/~ SPC Compact NCJ )lo

IST Loader No N6 IST Backhoe N6 !fo 1ST Skidsteer tJa lf6 PBS Pullback tJo flO

- 12-


12. If you answered "Yes" to any of Questions 1 through 11, and thus found that any Defendant has infringed any Degelman patent(s), has Degelman proven by clear and convincing evidence that such Defendant's(s') infringement was willful?




'576 Patent (Claim 1) ;JO A/0 ' 576 Patent (Claim 2) J/() ffd

'576 Patent (Claim 3) /VO ;J~ '576 Patent (Claim 4) NO po '576 Patent (Claim 5) Na Nd '576 Patent (Claim 6) 1/'0 IJ'() '576 Patent (Claim 7) /VO ;1/J '576 Patent (Claim 8) jJO NO

'097 Patent !/() No '128 Patent NtJ )/() '129 Patent J/0 )/0

- 13-


13. Have Defendants proven by clear and convincing evidence that Degelman's asserted utility and/or design patent claims are invalid?

' 576 Patent Yes _i_ (for Pro-Tech and/or Weagley) No (for Degelman)

(Claim 1)

'576 Patent Yes _X (for Pro-Tech and/or Weagley) No (for Degelman) (Claim 2)

'576 Patent Yes X (for Pro-Tech and/or Weagley) No (for Degelman)

(Claim 3)

'576 Patent Yes _l_ (for Pro-Tech and/or Weagley) No (for Degelman)

(Claim 4)

' 576 Patent Yes _!_ (for Pro-Tech and/or Weagley) No (for Degelman)

(Claim 5)

'576 Patent Yes ....X (for Pro-Tech and/or Weagley) No (for Degelman)

(Claim 6)

'576 Patent Yes _j_ (for Pro-Tech and/or Weagley) No (for Degelman)

(Claim 7)

'576 Patent y~j_ (for Pro-Tech and/or Weagley) No (for Degelman) (Claim 8)

'097 Patent Yes_i (for Pro-Tech and/or Weagley) No (for Degelman)

' 128 Patent Yes _l_ (for Pro-Tech and/or Weagley) No (for Degelman)

'129 Patent y., j_ (for Pro-Tech and/or Weagley) No (for Degelman)

Dated: March ~' 2013 ~~ - 14-

Degelman v. Pro-Tech - Verdict

Documents

Transcript of Degelman v. Pro-Tech - Verdict