## Facts

- National Presto Industries, Inc. owned U.S. Patent No. 5,089,286 covering a device that cuts vegetables into spiral curls.
- The West Bend Company manufactured and sold a competing spiral-vegetable cutter.
- Presto sued alleging direct infringement and willful infringement and also alleged induced infringement.
- West Bend denied infringement and asserted the patent was invalid based primarily on two Japanese publications it characterized as close prior art.
- The district court decided patent validity and induced infringement on summary judgment, tried direct infringement, willfulness, and damages to a jury, enhanced damages by 50%, and denied attorney’s fees.
- Both parties appealed adverse rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether a district court may grant summary judgment in favor of the nonmoving party on validity, consistent with Rule 56 and due process, when the movant had notice and an opportunity to present its evidence.
2. Whether West Bend raised a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to avoid summary judgment upholding validity on the invalidity theory it litigated.
3. Whether conduct occurring before patent issuance can, as a matter of law, support liability for inducement to infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
4. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings of infringement and willfulness, and whether the district court abused its discretion in enhancing damages and denying attorney’s fees.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment in all respects.
- The court upheld summary judgment for Presto on validity, concluding West Bend had adequate notice and opportunity to present all evidence on the invalidity ground it chose to litigate.
- The court affirmed summary judgment rejecting Presto’s induced-infringement theory based on West Bend’s pre-issuance conduct.
- The court affirmed the jury’s infringement and willfulness verdicts, the 50% enhancement of damages, and the denial of attorney’s fees.

## Legal Principles

- A district court may enter summary judgment for a nonmoving party if the losing party was on notice that it had to present all evidence and had a fair opportunity to respond; this does not violate Rule 56 or due process when the issue has been fully litigated.
- A party that litigates a limited invalidity theory and fails to identify a genuine dispute of material fact on that theory cannot later revive additional, unraised invalidity grounds on appeal.
- Inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) requires acts directed to infringement of an existing patent; pre-issuance conduct alone cannot create inducement liability.
- Jury findings on infringement and willfulness are reviewed for substantial evidence, and decisions on enhanced damages and attorney’s fees are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit affirmed a complete judgment for Presto, holding that summary judgment for the nonmovant on validity was procedurally proper, that pre-issuance conduct could not establish inducement under § 271(b), and that the jury’s infringement and willfulness findings—along with the district court’s damages enhancement and denial of attorney’s fees—were supported by the record.


Nat’l Presto Indus., Inc. v. West Bend Co., 76 F.3d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1996)