Slick Slide LLC v. Edwin L. Reed and Chad L. Reeves

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado resolves three motions in a patent and copyright dispute involving recreational slides. The court denies Slick Slide LLC’s motion to exclude the defendants’ expert, grants in part and denies in part Slick Slide’s partial summary judgment motion, and grants the Reed Defendants’ summary judgment motion. The court finds triable issues regarding the asserted design patent’s obviousness, but enters judgment concerning infringement and enforceability issues in Slick Slide’s favor and rejects the patent and copyright claims against the Reed Defendants.

Holdings

1. MacDonald was qualified to testify as an ordinary designer regarding the subject matter of the asserted patent and obviousness; alleged lack of specialization went to the weight of his testimony rather than its admissibility.
2. Slick Slide was not entitled to summary judgment on validity because competing expert opinions created a genuine dispute of material fact concerning whether the '821 patent was obvious.
3. Slick Slide was entitled to summary judgment in its favor on patent infringement and enforceability as to the Reeves Defendants, based on their admissions that they sold seven accused products within the scope of the asserted patent claim and were no longer pursuing unenforceability as a defense.
4. The Reed Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on direct patent infringement because the record did not create a genuine dispute that they made, used, offered to sell, or sold the accused slides.
5. The Reed Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on induced patent infringement because Slick Slide identified no evidence that they affirmatively induced infringement after Reed learned of the '821 patent.
6. The Reed Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on direct copyright infringement because reviewing and passing along drawings and documents did not establish copying of constituent original elements.
7. The Reed Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on induced or contributory copyright infringement because reviewing and passing along materials did not constitute materially contributing to or affirmatively fostering another person's infringement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants' expert Nathan MacDonald was qualified to offer testimony concerning slide design and obviousness under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
2. Whether Slick Slide was entitled to partial summary judgment on patent infringement, patent validity, and patent enforceability.
3. Whether the Reed Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on direct patent infringement.
4. Whether the Reed Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on induced patent infringement.
5. Whether the Reed Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on direct and induced copyright infringement.

Disposition

other