Wilco Marsh Buggies and Draglines, Inc. v. Weeks Marine, Inc.

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
WILCO MARSH BUGGIES AND DRAGLINES, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
WEEKS MARINE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-2320
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana in No. 2:20-cv-03135-CJB-
JVM, Judge Carl J. Barbier.
______________________
Decided: August 19, 2025
______________________
M EREDITH LEIGH M ARTIN A DDY, AddyHart P.C., At-
lanta, GA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented
by THOMAS S. K EATY , Keaty Law Firm LLC, New Orleans,
LA; STEPHEN M. K EPPER, G REGORY D. LATHAM , Intellectual
Property Consulting, LLC, New Orleans, LA.
M ICHAEL K. LEACHMAN , Jones Walker LLP, Baton
Rouge, LA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also repre-
sented by ROBERT W ADDELL, Lafayette, LA.
______________________
Case: 23-2320 Document: 54 Page: 1 Filed: 08/19/2025

-- 1 of 7 --

WILCO MARSH BUGGIES AND DRAGLINES , INC. v.
WEEKS MARINE, INC.
2
Before D YK and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges, and H ALL,
District Judge.1
H ALL, District Judge.
Wilco Marsh Buggies and Draglines, Inc. (“Wilco”) sued
Weeks Marine, Inc. (“Weeks”) in the Eastern District of
Louisiana, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent
No. 6,918,801 (“’801 patent”). The district court granted
summary judgment that the asserted claims of the ʼ801 pa-
tent are invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102. We
affirm.
BACKGROUND
The ’801 patent is directed to a self-propelled amphibi-
ous vehicle for use in amphibious excavation or dredging
operations. ’801 patent, col. 1 ll. 14–18, col. 2 ll. 16–18. In-
dependent claim 1 recites:
A vehicle comprising:
a chassis;
at least two pontoons supported by said chas-
sis, wherein said pontoons provide sufficient
buoyancy such that the vehicle can float on
water;
a track system disposed on said pontoons and
adapted to provide propulsion to the vehicle
when moving on land or in water;
a plurality of spuds connected to said chassis,
wherein said spuds have a first position
wherein said spuds extend below the bottom
1 Honorable Jennifer L. Hall, District Judge, United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, sitting
by designation.
Case: 23-2320 Document: 54 Page: 2 Filed: 08/19/2025

-- 2 of 7 --

WILCO MARSH BUGGIES AND DRAGLINES , INC. v.
WEEKS MARINE, INC.
3
of said pontoons and a second position
wherein said spuds do not extend below the
bottom of said pontoons.
Id. at col. 5 l. 60–col. 6 l. 5.
Wilco sued Weeks in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging that Weeks’
“Amphibious Excavators” infringed several claims of the
ʼ801 patent. Weeks moved for summary judgment, arguing
(among other things) that the asserted claims are invalid
as anticipated by a prior art amphibious excavator called
the MudMaster, manufactured by non-party DredgeMas-
ters International Inc. (“DMI”). The district court, on re-
consideration, agreed with Weeks and granted summary
judgment that, as relevant here, asserted claims 1–5 and
9–15 of the ’801 patent are invalid as anticipated by the
MudMaster. Wilco Marsh Buggies and Draglines, Inc. v.
Weeks Marine, Inc., No. 20-3135, 2023 WL 4624744, at *4–
5 (E.D. La. July 19, 2023); see also J.A. 10–13.
Wilco appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(1).
D ISCUSSION
We review a grant of summary judgment under the law
of the regional circuit, here, the Fifth Circuit. Click-to-Call
Techs. LP v. Ingenio, Inc., 45 F.4th 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir.
2022). The Fifth Circuit reviews a district court’s grant of
summary judgment de novo. Id. Summary judgment is
appropriate where no reasonable jury could return a ver-
dict for the nonmoving party. Id. “Although anticipation
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is a question of fact, it may be de-
cided on summary judgment if the record reveals no genu-
ine dispute of material fact.” Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v.
Nokia, Inc., 527 F.3d 1318, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing
Gen. Elec. Co. v. Nintendo Co., 179 F.3d 1350, 1353
(Fed. Cir. 1999)).
Case: 23-2320 Document: 54 Page: 3 Filed: 08/19/2025

-- 3 of 7 --

WILCO MARSH BUGGIES AND DRAGLINES , INC. v.
WEEKS MARINE, INC.
4
Weeks requested summary judgment on the basis that
the asserted claims were anticipated both by a “public use”
of the MudMaster at the 1981 ConExpo trade show in Hou-
ston, Texas, and by “sales” of the MudMaster in 1980 and
1993. See 35 U.S.C. § 1022 (pre-AIA) (“A person shall be
entitled to a patent unless — . . . (b) the invention was . . .
in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year
prior to the date of the application for patent in the United
States.”). A prior art product can only anticipate a patent
claim if it contains each and every limitation of the claim.
See Scaltech Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, L.L.C., 178 F.3d 1378,
1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[T]he first determination in the
§ 102(b) analysis must be whether the subject of the bar-
ring activity met each of the limitations of the claim.”).
That a prior art product “is in fact the claimed invention
may be established by any relevant evidence, such as mem-
oranda, drawings, correspondence, and testimony of wit-
nesses.” Sonoscan, Inc. v. Sonotek, Inc., 936 F.2d 1261,
1263 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citation omitted).
On appeal, Wilco argues that summary judgment of an-
ticipation of the asserted claims was inappropriate because
there is a dispute of material fact as to whether the partic-
ular MudMaster machines demonstrated at the ConExpo
trade show in 1981 and sold in 1980 had the required “chas-
sis.”3 We need not reach Wilco’s arguments concerning the
1980 sale, however, because we conclude that the 1993
2 Because the claims at issue have an effective filing
date prior to March 16, 2013, the effective date of the ap-
plicable provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents
Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), the
pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 102 applies.
3 Claims 9–11 do not expressly require a “chassis,”
but Wilco presents no independent argument on appeal re-
garding the validity of those claims in view of the MudMas-
ter.
Case: 23-2320 Document: 54 Page: 4 Filed: 08/19/2025

-- 4 of 7 --

WILCO MARSH BUGGIES AND DRAGLINES , INC. v.
WEEKS MARINE, INC.
5
MudMaster sale meets the limitation. King Pharms., Inc.
v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(“[A]n appellate court . . . is not limited to a district court’s
stated reasons for invalidating claims and can affirm a
grant of summary judgment on any ground supported by
the record and adequately raised below.”).
The district court adopted Wilco’s proposed construc-
tion of “chassis,” construing the term as “[t]he supporting
frame of a vehicle, exclusive of the body or housing.” J.A.
1309–12. The record evidence presented to the district
court—which included assembly instructions for the Mud-
Master sold in 1993 and fact and expert witness testi-
mony—unequivocally established that the MudMaster
machine sold in 1993 had a “chassis” in the form of two 16-
foot-long connector pipes extending through the trunnion
support frame and pontoons. No reasonable juror could
find otherwise.
Wilco points to the testimony of its expert witness,
Mr. Bennett, to try to demonstrate a dispute of material
fact. Mr. Bennett opined that the 1993 MudMaster “ladder
frame” was not a chassis, and he stated, in a conclusory
fashion, that the MudMaster otherwise lacked a chassis.
But a conclusory expert opinion cannot create a genuine
dispute of material fact, Regents of Univ. of Minn. v. AGA
Med. Corp., 717 F.3d 929, 941 (Fed. Cir. 2013), and the re-
maining uncontroverted evidence of record demonstrated
that the MudMaster’s 16-foot-long connector pipes (not the
“ladder frame”) formed a chassis.4
4 In any event, Mr. Bennett acknowledged in his
deposition that “there must be something there [in the
MudMaster] to support [the pontoons].” J.A. 2753. When
asked for examples of what type of structure could be sup-
porting pontoons, Mr. Bennett explained that “[y]ou could
Case: 23-2320 Document: 54 Page: 5 Filed: 08/19/2025

-- 5 of 7 --

WILCO MARSH BUGGIES AND DRAGLINES , INC. v.
WEEKS MARINE, INC.
6
Wilco does not argue on appeal that the MudMaster
machine sold in 1993 lacked any other limitations of the
asserted claims. To the extent Wilco contends that Weeks
forfeited the argument that the 1993 MudMaster sale was
an invalidating sale, we also disagree. In its motion for re-
consideration of the court’s summary judgment order,
Weeks argued that the 1993 MudMaster barred the ’801
patent claims under the on-sale bar. J.A. 2843-45. Wilco
does not dispute that it did not object to Weeks’ argument
before the district court, Oral Arg. at 1:25-2:02,
https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=23
-2320_06052025.mp3; J.A. 3062-88, and it has thus for-
feited its argument. See In re Google Tech Holdings LLC,
980 F.3d 858, 838 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“We have regularly
stated and applied the important principle that a position
not presented in the tribunal under review will not be con-
sidered on appeal in the absence of exceptional circum-
stances.”); Calzone v. Summers, 942 F.3d 415, 422 (8th Cir.
2019) (compiling cases on forfeiture or waiver of forfeiture).
Because we agree with the district court that the
1993 MudMaster possessed a chassis, and thus anticipates
the asserted claims, we do not address the parties’ argu-
ments relating to other asserted prior art.
have decks. You could have beams. But in general you
have to have a frame of some kind.” J.A. 2754. Then, when
asked about “amphibious vehicles that use beams to sup-
port the pontoons,” Mr. Bennett conceded that such beams
are considered “[a] part of the frame that is a chassis” and
that the “beams are a portion of the chassis.” J.A. 2756. If
anything, Mr. Bennett’s testimony supports our conclusion
that no reasonable jury could find that the MudMaster
lacked a chassis (as that term was construed by the district
court).
Case: 23-2320 Document: 54 Page: 6 Filed: 08/19/2025

-- 6 of 7 --

WILCO MARSH BUGGIES AND DRAGLINES , INC. v.
WEEKS MARINE, INC.
7
CONCLUSION
We have considered Wilco’s remaining arguments and
find them unpersuasive. For the reasons stated, the judg-
ment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
Case: 23-2320 Document: 54 Page: 7 Filed: 08/19/2025

-- 7 of 7 --