Midwest Innovative Prods., LLC v. Kinamor, Inc., No. 16 C 11005, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 31, 2017) (Shah, J.).
Judge Shah denied defendants’ (collectively “Kinamor”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff Midwest Innovative Products’ (“MIP”) patent claims in this case involving electrical cord connection coverings.
Kinamor argued that it could not infringe MIP’s patent because a second compression portion of its accused covering had one groove, not the required two grooves. MIP acknowledged that the claims facially required the second compression portion have two grooves, but argued that it was a typographical error that the Court could correct because the error was facially evident and not subject to “reasonable debate.” The Court, however, held that the issue should be decided as part of claim construction. And while the parties agreed that the Court could construe the relevant claim terms as part of the motion, construction was inappropriate at the early stage of the proceedings. In particular, the parties needed to weigh in on the ordinary skill in the art before the Court could rule.
The Court also denied Kinamor’s motion as to invalidity because Rule 12 motions were not the proper vehicle for deciding invalidity.