1179 KUHL WHEELS, LLC and EPILOGICS GROUP v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and FORD MOTOR COMPANY

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2008-1158, -1179
KUHL WHEELS, LLC and EPILOGICS GROUP,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HAYES LEMMERZ INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KUHL WHEELS, LLC and EPILOGICS GROUP,
Defendants-Appellants.
John C. Elstead, The Elstead Law Firm, of Pleasanton, California, argued for all
appellants. Of counsel on the brief were Barry N. Young, Law Offices of Barry N.
Young, of Palo Alto, California, and Andrew N. Chang, Esner, Chang & Ellis, of
Glendale, California.
Stephen E. Glazek, Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC, of Detroit, Michigan,
argued for all appellees. With him on the brief were Josh J. Moss and Mark J.
Sobanski.
Appealed from: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Judge Robert H. Cleland

-- 1 of 4 --

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2008-1158, -1179
KUHL WHEELS, LLC and EPILOGICS GROUP,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees.
---------------------------------------------------
HAYES LEMMERZ INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KUHL WHEELS, LLC and EPILOGICS GROUP,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in case nos.
03-CV-70181 and 06-CV-15204, Judge Robert H. Cleland.
__________________________
DECIDED: February 10, 2009
__________________________
Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, MAYER, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs Kuhl Wheels, LLC and Epilogics Group
(collectively, “Kuhl”) appeal from summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc. (“Hayes”). See Hayes
Lemmerz Int’l, Inc. v. Epilogics Group, 531 F. Supp. 2d 789, 795 (E.D. Mich. 2007).

-- 2 of 4 --

Kuhl also appeals the grant of Hayes’s motion for summary judgment on non-patent
issues, including fraud, breach of contract, and unfair business practices. Id. We heard
oral argument on February 2, 2009. We are satisfied that there is no genuine issue of
material fact regarding either the non-infringement or the non-patent issues. Therefore,
we affirm.
Kuhl is the assignee of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,042,194 (“the ’194 patent”) and
6,520,596 (“the ’596 patent”). The ’194 patent is directed to steel wheels having a
plurality of spoke arrangements, each of which includes at least two elongated spokes
connected at their inner ends by a cross-bar that is designed to bolt to the connecting
end of the axle of a vehicle. The ’596 patent is directed to hubs for steel wheels and
wheels incorporating the hubs.
Hayes is a licensee to the ’194 patent and other Kuhl Wheel technology. Hayes
developed a hi-vent steel wheel—the Struktur Wheel. Each spoke arrangement of the
Struktur Wheel is a unitary structure with side-reinforcing flanges connected by full
webbing. After Hayes publicly displayed the Struktur Wheel, Kuhl wrote to Hayes
alleging that the Struktur Wheel infringed claims of the ’194 patent. On January 10,
2003, Kuhl terminated the license.
On January 14, 2003, Hayes filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for non-infringement and invalidity of
the ’194 patent and the ’596 patent. Kuhl counterclaimed for patent infringement and
various non-patent claims. Kuhl also filed a separate patent infringement action against
General Motors Corporation (“GM”) and Ford Motor Company (“Ford”).
2008-1158, -1179
2

-- 3 of 4 --

2008-1158, -1179
3
The district court granted Hayes’s motions for summary judgment of
non-infringement and also on the non-patent claims. Hayes Lemmerz Int’l, 531 F.
Supp. 2d 789. Accordingly, the court entered judgment for Hayes. It also entered
judgment for GM and Ford pursuant to the doctrine of issue preclusion. Kuhl appeals
both judgments.
Kuhl appeals the district court’s claim construction of “spokes” and “means for
connecting the outer ends of said spokes to said rim.” The court defined “spokes” as
“rods or braces that carry forces between the rim and the hub,” which “need not extend
from the hub to the rim” but “must be spaced apart by a radially extending opening.” Id.
at 798. The intrinsic evidence, including the language of the claims and the
specification, as well as the figures of the ’194 patent, fully supports this construction.
Under the court’s claim construction of “spokes,” there is no factual dispute that Hayes’s
Struktur Wheel does not infringe the ’194 patent, literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents. Therefore, we affirm the summary judgment of non-infringement of the
’194 patent. We reach this conclusion without considering the district court’s claim
construction and infringement analysis of “means for connecting the outer ends of said
spokes to said rim.”
We also hold that the district court correctly construed the disputed claim terms
of the ’596 patent and affirm the summary judgment of non-infringement of the ’596
patent. Similarly, there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the non-patent
claims. Therefore, we affirm the summary judgment in favor of Hayes on these claims.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s grant of Hayes’s
summary judgment motions.

-- 4 of 4 --