Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc., 2018-2215, -2254 (Jan. 13, 2020). Eko sued Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises (“ARM”) seeking a declaration of noninfringement and invalidity as to ARM’s U.S. Patent No. 8,720,320 (“the ’320 patent”), and asserting ARM infringed Eko’s U.S. Patent No. 8,707,855 (“the ’855 patent”). Both patents cover devices for use with single serve beverage brewing machines. A jury found the asserted ’320 patent claims invalid as obvious, and the district court awarded Eko its attorney’s fees associated therewith. ARM stipulated to infringement of the ’855 patent based on the district court’s claim construction. The jury awarded compensatory damages, but found no willful infringement. ARM appealed, and Eko cross appealed on willfulness. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
Concerning the ’320 patent, the Court held the district court correctly construed the term “brewing chamber” as not requiring a “sealed or fully-enclosed” space. The Court further held that substantial evidence supported the jury’s obviousness finding, rejecting ARM’s assertion that no prior art reference disclosed a “cover [of the brewing chamber that] is adapted to sealingly engage with a top edge of the at least one sidewall.” Specifically, the Court concluded the jury could have found that limitation disclosed by a prior art reference that (1) discussed a lid overlaying a cup-shaped housing and (2) provided detailed descriptions of the operation of the lid in conjunction with the cartridge holder. The Court also affirmed the award of attorney’s fees to Eko.
Concerning the’855 patent, the Court affirmed the district court’s claim construction, noting that, although the claim’s preamble references a “brewing device for use with a single serve beverage brewer,” the claim is directed to a brewing device, not to the single serve brewing machine with which that device may be used. On Eko’s cross appeal, the Court affirmed the jury verdict of no willfulness. The Court explained that, while the inclusion of the phrases “especially worthy of punishment” and “reserved for egregious behavior” in the jury instruction was erroneous, “the instruction taken as a whole provides reasonable clarity as to the correct test for willful infringement.”
Judge Reyna dissented in part, stating he believed the district court “erred when it granted summary judgement of noninfringement and an award of attorney’s fees based on” an erroneous construction of the claim term “passageway.”