FOLLOW US

A Washington federal judge has dismissed inventor Jay Schuyleman's patent infringement lawsuit against Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co., finding the claims in his crane system patent too indefinite to be enforced.

In a sharply critical opinion issued Friday, U.S. District Judge James Robart ruled that Schuyleman’s U.S. Patent No. 8,317,244 failed to meet the precision required under patent law. At the heart of the ruling was the term “offset hoisting apparatus,” which the judge said was too imprecise and riddled with internal inconsistencies.

Core Term Renders Patent Indefinite

Judge Robart found that the term “offset hoisting apparatus,” a central component of the patent's claims, lacked clarity and consistency between the patent’s claim language, written description, and accompanying figures.

“In reading the claim language in tandem with the written description and figures, the '244 patent lacks the precision required to afford clear notice of what is claimed,” Judge Robart wrote. The inconsistencies were significant enough, he said, that a person of ordinary skill in the field would be unable to determine the scope of the invention.

While Schuyleman claimed the apparatus was made up of a rigid boom, a front mount, and a rear mount, Judge Robart pointed out contradictions in the language suggesting those components were instead part of the claimed improvement itself. The figures included in the patent only compounded this confusion.

No Evidence to Send Issue to Jury

The court also faulted Schuyleman for failing to present any evidence or arguments sufficient to support his claims or overcome Barnhart’s invalidity challenge. Judge Robart emphasized that Schuyleman didn’t address the key inconsistencies flagged in the claim construction process.

“In his response, Mr. Schuyleman does not address the identified inconsistencies between the claim language, the written description, and the figures,” Robart noted.

Adding to the blow, Schuyleman’s own summary judgment bid was denied. He had sought to exclude expert testimony backing Barnhart’s invalidity defense rather than supplying counterevidence. But the court had already declined to exclude that testimony, and found Schuyleman’s efforts insufficient to defeat Barnhart’s motion.

Trial Canceled as Case Ends Preemptively

A trial had been scheduled for June 16 before Barnhart succeeded in convincing the court to rule early. Schuyleman had filed the suit in April 2023, alleging that three of Barnhart’s moveable counterweight cantilever systems infringed his patent, which was aimed at improving load-lifting mechanisms used to hoist materials into building openings.

However, with the central term deemed indefinite, the court dismissed the case entirely.