| MINNEAPOLIS PERSONAL INJURY ATTORNEY |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wimco, LLC v. Lange Industries, Inc.: US District Court : PATENT - Markman order construing nine terms1Contrary to the implication of its title, the ‘207 patent does not include any methodclaims. A method claim in the initial patent application was dropped in the course of prosecution, but the title of the patent was not revised accordingly. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA WIMCO, LLC, Plaintiff, v. LANGE INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants. Case No. 06-CV-3565 (PJS/RLE) MARKMAN ORDER Matthew D. Spohn, David P. Pearson, and Brent A. Lorenz, WINTHROP & WEINSTINE, PA, for plaintiff. Mark R. Privratsky, David A. Allgeyer, and Christopher R. Smith, LINDQUIST & VENNUM PLLP; Mark M. Nolan and Randy V. Thompson, NOLAN, MACGREGOR, THOMPSON & LEIGHTON, for defendant. This matter is before the Court for construction of certain terms found in the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,052,207 (the ‘207 patent) in accordance with Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390-91 (1996). The parties prepared a joint claim-construction statement, and each side submitted two briefs (opening and response) on claim-construction issues. The Court held a Markman hearing on June 27, 2007. I. BACKGROUND The ‘207 patent, titled “Sediment Control Drain and Method of Construction,” covers a filter basin designed to be inserted into a street’s storm-sewer drain in addition to or in lieu of the grate in order to keep debris from flowing into the storm sewer.1 The basin has two primary uses. First, the basin can be inserted when concrete work is being done in the area surrounding - 2 - the storm drain; the basin catches and filters out wet concrete that might otherwise fall into the storm sewer. Second, the basin can be inserted while a subdivision is being developed to catch topsoil and other debris that tends to wash off into storm sewers when the ground is bare of vegetation. The patent drawings depict a sink-like basin with a circular hole in the middle of the basin’s bottom and a perforated standpipe around that hole. The standpipe is covered with filter material (a “filter sock”), and water that enters the basin passes through the filter material, into the standpipe, and out through the hole in the bottom of the basin. The top of the standpipe is left open so that overflowing water can exit the basin directly, without filtration, through the top of the standpipe. Finally, the basin includes a deflector wall on the side of the basin facing the curb; this wall ensures that debris is diverted into the basin and does not flow directly into the sewer through the opening in the curb. Plaintiff WIMCO, LLC (“WIMCO”) and defendant Lange Industries, Inc. (“Lange”) compete to sell and service filter basins for storm drains. WIMCO owns the ‘207 patent, which was issued to Brian Wimberger, WIMCO’s owner. Westman Decl. ¶ 2 [Docket No. 36]. WIMCO sued Lange in September 2006 for infringing the ‘207 patent, as well as for various state-law causes of action (false advertising, unfair competition, business torts, etc.). WIMCO alleges that Lange’s filter basin — a basin that does not incorporate a standpipe — infringes claims 6 through 12 of the ‘207 patent. Pl. Claim Constr. Br. at 3 [Docket No. 26]. Claims 6 through 12 are not, on their face, limited to basins with standpipes. WIMCO is not asserting claims 1 through 5, which are expressly limited to basins featuring standpipes. - 3 - II. APPLICABLE LAW Courts, not juries, construe patent claims. Markman, 517 U.S. at 391. Language in a particular claim must be construed in the context of both that claim and the entire patent, including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Indeed, the specification, read in light of the prosecution history, is the primary basis for construing patent claims. Id. at 1315. Courts may also rely on “extrinsic evidence” — everything other than the patent and its prosecution history — but that evidence is secondary to the intrinsic evidence. Id. at 1317. In general, claim language means what it would have meant, ordinarily and customarily, to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent application was filed. Id. at 1312-13. In some cases, the ordinary and customary meaning of claim language to a person of ordinary skill in the art may be identical to the meaning of that language to a lay person who is not skilled in the art. Id. at 1314. III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION A. Overview The parties have asked the Court to construe a total of twelve terms in three different claims (five terms in each of claims 6 and 9 and two terms in claim 12). But the parties’ list of terms is highly redundant. In some instances, the parties ask the Court to construe certain phrases and then to separately construe components of those same phrases; in other instances, the parties ask the Court to separately construe virtually identical terms in different claims. The Court finds that the number of distinct disputed terms can be reduced from twelve to nine, and - 4 - the Court construes those nine terms below. In so doing, the Court construes all of the disputed claim language. Although nine terms (by the Court’s count) are at issue, the dispute between WIMCO and Lange boils down to two issues. First, Lange contends that claims 6 through 12 of the ‘207 patent should be interpreted to cover only basins that incorporate standpipes. WIMCO disagrees; it contends that claims 6 through 12 are broad enough to cover basins that do not feature standpipes. Second, Lange contends that only basins that fit “correctly” into storm-sewer drains are covered by claims 6 through 12. Again, WIMCO disagrees. According to WIMCO, the claimed basins must “fit” into storm-sewer drains, but do not necessarily have to fit “correctly.” On the first and more important point, the Court agrees with WIMCO. As explained below, the Court will not read a standpipe limitation into claim language that, on its face, is not limited to covering basins with standpipes. On the second point — the required degree of fit between the patented basin and a storm-sewer drain — the Court adopts a position that is similar to Lange’s. The parties have not argued that someone of ordinary skill in the art would interpret any of the disputed language differently than would an educated lay person. Instead, the parties’ arguments have focused on the ‘207 patent itself, its prosecution history, various pieces of prior art that are cited in the ‘207 patent, and definitions from general-purpose dictionaries. WIMCO also offers a declaration from the patent lawyer who prosecuted the patent (Nickolas Westman), but the Court has not considered this declaration in determining how to construe the claims. Westman’s declaration contains evidence about Westman’s state of mind and speculation by 2In claim 6, the phrase “of size to fit into the grate frame” modifies one noun phrase (“open top receptacle”), whereas in claim 9 the phrase “being of size to fit into the grate frame” modifies a different noun phrase (“erosion control housing”). The parties treat “of size to fit into the grate frame” and “being of size to fit into the grate frame” as if they are different claim terms. Joint Claim Const. Stmt. (“JCCS”) at 1, 3 [Docket No. 17]. In fact, both phrases include the same term (“of size to fit into the grate frame”). Claim 9 merely makes explicit (with the word “being”) what is implicit in claim 6: The modified noun phrase (“open top receptacle” in claim 6; “erosion control housing” in claim 9) has the property of being “of size to fit into the grate frame.” Accordingly, the Court treats the phrase “of size to fit into the grate frame,” and not the phrase “being of size to fit into the grate frame,” as the term to be construed, and gives the phrase the same meaning in both claim 6 and claim 9. - 5 - Westman about the state of mind of the patent examiner who reviewed the application that issued as the ‘207 patent. See Westman Decl. ¶¶ 11-12, 14. But even if the states of mind of Westman and the patent examiner were knowable, those states of mind would be of little use in determining, as the Court must, the objective meaning of the disputed claim language. Accordingly, the Court construes the disputed terms based on the intrinsic evidence and in light of the ordinary meaning that the claim language would have to an educated lay person. B. Disputed Terms 1. The term “of size to fit into the grate frame” (claims 6 and 9).2 The Court construes this term to mean: of a size to fit reasonably accurately into the grate frame. WIMCO argues that this term does not need to be construed. Joint Claim Const. Stmt. (“JCCS”) at 1, 3 [Docket No. 17]; Pl. Claim Constr. Br. at 8-10. Lange proposes construing it to mean “of a size to conform correctly to the shape or size of the grate frame.” Def. Claim Const. Br. at 27-28 [Docket No. 28]. Based on the patent specification, the Court adopts a position close to Lange’s. - 6 - The word “fit” is at once ordinary and imprecise; its meaning varies significantly depending on the context in which it is used. In some contexts, object A “fits” inside object B if A is smaller than B, regardless of how much smaller. For instance, if a store clerk asks a customer if her new television will “fit” into the trunk of her car, the customer will answer “yes” as long as the trunk is larger than the television. It will make no difference whether the television will take up all of the room in the trunk or only a small portion of it; in either case, the customer will say that the television “fits” into the trunk. But if a mechanic is asked whether a nut “fits” onto a bolt, he will not say “yes” unless the threads on each are cut to match and the outer diameter of the bolt is nearly identical to the inner diameter of the nut, so that the threads on the nut will engage properly with the threads on the bolt. If the nut is so large that the bolt passes through without engaging, the mechanic will say that the nut does not “fit.” In light of the protean nature of the word “fit,” to leave the phrase “of size to fit into the grate frame” entirely undefined (as WIMCO suggests) would not give sufficient guidance to the jury that will have to decide infringement. It is clear that, in the ‘207 patent, “fit” means something like the fit of a nut onto a bolt rather than the fit of a television into a car trunk. In several ways, the ‘207 patent specification indicates that the outer edges of the patented basin must fit fairly closely to the inside edges of storm-sewer grate frame. First, all of the patent drawings depict a basin that fits entirely within an existing storm-sewer grate frame, with neither significant gaps nor significant overlaps. In particular, Figure 2 shows a basin inside a grate frame and a grate inside that basin — that is, it depicts a basin sized to accommodate the exact same grate that is accommodated by the grate frame itself. Second, in describing the preferred embodiments, the patent provides: “Storm - 12 - directed to a “method of constructing a storm drain” that was not limited to using a basin with a standpipe. Westman Decl. Ex. A (Patent Application) at 7-9, Ex. B (Preliminary Amend.) at 2-3. The patent examiner understood that the apparatus claims in the ‘207 patent application, as first considered by the PTO, were limited to basins with standpipes. Indeed, the examiner required Wimberger to restrict his application to either the apparatus claims or the method claim, because the method claim “can be practiced by another materially different apparatus [i.e., one other than the device claimed in the apparatus claims], such as a filtering basket in the basin without the upright drain pipe wrapped around with filtering material.” Westman Decl. Ex. C (PTO Office Action Mar. 17, 2004) at 2 (emphasis added). In response, Wimberger elected to pursue only the apparatus claims. Wimberger also responded to arguments that the examiner had made in rejecting a related patent application (which issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,609,852), although the examiner had not yet raised those arguments in connection with the application that issued as the ‘207 patent. Wimberger argued that his apparatus claims were patentable over two prior-art references, Williamson (U.S. Patent No. 6,287,459) and Singleton (U.S. Patent No. 5,843,306). Wimberger asserted that there was no suggestion in the prior art that would lead to his invention, i.e., “a basin that has a peripheral wall that encircles the basin, and surrounds an upright drain pipe.” Westman Decl. Ex. D (Amend. Apr. 19, 2004) at 5 (emphasis added). Wimberger repeatedly emphasized the importance of the standpipe to his claimed invention, and distinguished it from the prior art on the basis that “the present device . . . has a bottom wall with an upright pipe in the bottom wall, 6In addition, Wimberger argued: [T]here is no suggestion in the Williamson patent that a filter that filters round a pipe that is spaced from the peripheral walls would be possible, or desirable. . . . In fact, there is no suggestion that the basin of Williamson would support an upright pipe connected on a bottom wall . . . . The open bottom of the filter frame shown in Figure 3 of Williamson will not support an upright pipe that has openings and a filter around the pipe. . . . Since there is no bottom wall in the Williamson device that can support an upright pipe with a filter around it, if the unit shown in the Singleton patent was placed into that frame [i.e., the frame disclosed in the Williamson patent], water would flow out around the corners, and [the unit] would not work for its intended purpose.” Westman Decl. Ex. D (Amend. Apr. 19, 2004) at 6. - 13 - and with a filter around the upright pipe to accomplish filtering of silt and debris before being transferred out through an opening in the bottom wall.” Id. at 7.6 These remarks make clear that, as initially conceived, the invention claimed in the ‘207 patent covered only a basin with a standpipe. But at the time that Wimberger made these remarks, the only claims before the PTO were apparatus claims that expressly included a standpipe — claims that eventually issued as claims 1 through 5 of the ‘207 patent. There is no dispute that claims 1 through 5 cover only basins with standpipes, and those claims have not been asserted in this case. The examiner disagreed with Wimberger’s arguments about the prior art and, on June 23, 2004, rejected what are now claims 1 and 5 as obvious in light of the prior art. Westman Decl. Ex. F (PTO Office Action June 23, 2004) at 3-4. The examiner also rejected all of the claims as obvious in light of Wimberger’s related patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,609,852 (the ‘852 patent), but advised Wimberger that this ground of rejection (obviousness-type double patenting) could be - 14 - overcome if Wimberger filed a terminal disclaimer to limit the term of what became the ‘207 patent to the term of the‘852 patent. Id. at 4-7. Meanwhile, before he received word of the PTO’s June 23 rejection, Wimberger again amended his claims, adding for the first time apparatus claims that were 7Lange asks the Court to construe the entire phrase “a filter supported in the basin below a top opening of the open top receptacle” and then to separately construe the words “top opening” within the phrase. The Court sees no need to do so. In construing the phrase as a unit, the Court necessarily construes the components of the phrase. - 18 - standpipes. That rejection (which Wimberger eventually overcame) also establishes that Wimberger did not secure allowance of his claims by misleading the PTO as to their nature. Even if Wimberger, early in the prosecution history, tried to distract the patent examiner from the fact that some of his claims did not require a standpipe, the examiner was well aware of this fact by the time he allowed the claims that issued as the ‘207 patent. The doctrine of prosecution disclaimer does not, therefore, mandate construing the broad term “filtered drain from the erosion control basin” in claim 6 to cover only the narrow embodiment of a “standpipe with filter sock located in the interior of the erosion control basin,” as Lange contends. 3. The term “a filter supported in the basin below a top opening of the open top receptacle” (claim 6)7 The Court construes this term to mean: a filter supported in the basin below the open top of the receptacle. Lange argues that this means “a filter sock supported on a standpipe, having a top opening, extending from the bottom of an open top erosion control basin.” JCCS at 2; Def. Claim Constr. Br. at 33. WIMCO proposes a construction that repeats the claim language, but provides an additional gloss on the term “open top receptacle,” defining it as “the erosion control basin.” JCCS at 2 (proposing this construction: “A filter supported in the basin below a top opening of the open top receptacle, the open top receptacle also being known as the erosion control basin.”). The Court adopts neither proposed construction. - 19 - Lange’s proposed construction rests largely on the fact that the patent discloses only basins with standpipes. Def. Claim Constr. Br. at 33-34. For the reasons already given in connection with the term “filtered drain from the erosion control basin,” the Court declines to limit otherwise broad claim language (in this term, the words “filter supported in the basin”) to the preferred embodiments disclosed in the ‘207 patent. The Court also disagrees with Lange’s contention that the words “top opening” must be construed as the top of a standpipe because the specification refers to “the top of the drainpipe” and provides that the “upper opening of the tube, which forms a standpipe type structure, is left open . . . .” See Def. Claim Constr. Br. at 33-34; ‘207 Patent Abstract; ‘207 Patent col. 1:47-48. The “top opening” of the standpipe is not the only “top opening” disclosed in the patent; the basin itself obviously has a top opening. Just as obviously, it is the basin’s top opening to which the disputed language in claim 6 refers; after all, as described at length above, claim 6 does not even require a standpipe. The Court rejects WIMCO’s proposed construction because it is inconsistent with the language of claim 6. As noted above, claim 6 is directed to an “erosion control basin comprising” three things: an “open top receptacle,” a “filtered drain,” and a “deflector wall.” ‘207 Patent col. 4:37-43 (emphasis added). Because the “open top receptacle” is but one component of the “erosion control basin,” the Court cannot construe the “open top receptacle” to be identical to the “erosion control basin,” as WIMCO proposes. Nonetheless, the Court agrees in substance with WIMCO that the “top opening of the open top receptacle” is the top opening of the receptacle portion of the basin, not the top opening of a standpipe within the basin. Claim 6 (which, again, does not require a standpipe) provides - 20 - that the “top opening” at issue is the top opening “of the open top receptacle.” The Court’s claim construction is dictated by this language. The Court’s claim construction does, however, appear to conflict slightly with one aspect of the claim language and with an amendment made during the prosecution history. Wimberger originally proposed claim language almost identical to the Court’s claim construction. The nowdisputed language, which reads “a filter supported in the basin below 9A different examiner’s amendment introduced an error into claim language that had previously been correct. Claim 11, as originally submitted, was drawn to a basin designed to “support a slatted grate that overlies the grate frame.” Westman Decl. Ex. K (Amend. Jun16, 2005) at 5. The examiner required Wimberger to changed “slatted grate” — i.e., a grate with slats — to “slated grate,” which demonstrates that the examiner overlooked principles of English orthography. See Westman Decl. Ex. L (PTO Office Action Summary July 26, 2005) at 3. - 22 - expectations of patent drafters and examiners. The leading treatise on drafting patent claims instructs as follows: The first time an element or part is mentioned, it should not be preceded by a definite article (“the”) or by “said.” Instead the indefinite article (“a” or “an”) should be used . . .: “a container,” “a base,” etc. . . . When each previously identified element or part is referred to again, the definite article should be used, as “the container,” “the base” . . . . Id. at § 3:11 at 3-48 (footnote omitted); see also id. at § 10:7.4 at 10-44 (“A new element or step is introduced with an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an.’ . . . On the other hand, when a previously identified element or step is repeated, it is introduced by a definite article ‘the’ or ‘said.’”). Recall that the patent examiner changed “below the open top” to “below a top opening of the open top receptacle.” Smith Decl. Ex. G (Examiner’s Amend./Cmt.) at 2 (emphasis added). This change follows naturally from the practice, in drafting patent claims, of always using the indefinite article the first time a claim element is introduced, and of considering the claim element “the duck” to be indefinite if it has not already been introduced as “a duck.” Claim 6, as originally drafted, referred to “the open top” without ever having recited “an open top.” Westman Decl. Ex. N (Amend. Oct. 25, 2005) at 4. The examiner’s amendment corrected this fancied defect in the original claim language.9 The examiner’s interview notes make clear, however, that this was a technical change, not a substantive one. The Court’s construction 10Although the parties identify the term “drain opening” in claim 9 as a term that needs to be construed, they do not separately identify the term “drain opening” in claim 12 as needing construction. Instead, Lange implicitly tries to secure a construction of the term “drain opening” in claim 12 by asking the Court to construe the larger phrase “below the open top and above the drain opening to form a drain.” See JCCS at 4. The term “drain opening” in claim 12 has the same meaning as “drain opening” in claim 9. Accordingly, the Court construes the term only once. - 23 - simply rephrases the claim language in a way that a layperson can understand, without changing that language’s meaning. 4. The term “drain opening” (claim 9, claim 12)10 The Court agrees with WIMCO that this term does not need to be construed. The words “drain opening” are ordinary words, used in their ordinary sense, and any further definition or paraphrasing would serve no useful purpose. Lange argues that “drain opening” means “bottom of standpipe.” JCCS at 3; Def. Claim Constr. Br. at 36-37. Lange’s argument relies primarily on the fact that the ‘207 patent specification discloses only one type of drain, a hole at the bottom of the standpipe. This is true, but it is not a sufficient reason to limit the broad term “drain opening” to cover only a single embodiment. In so limiting the term, the Court would be wrongly importing a limitation from the specification into the claims. 5. The term “drain opening defined by the erosion control housing” (claim 9) The Court construes this term as follows: A drain opening is “defined by the erosion control housing” if it is an opening whose boundaries are formed by, and found within, the erosion-control housing. 11Claim 6 describes a “storm sewer inlet having an opening on a lateral side of the grate frame above the grate opening and defined in the street curb . . . .” ‘207 Patent col. 4:35-37 (emphasis added). The “opening” of the storm sewer inlet is “defined” in the street curb because its boundaries are formed by, and found within, the street curb. Claim 12 describes “an opening for overflow defined by portions of the erosion control housing . . . .” ‘207 Patent col.6:4-5 (emphasis added). The boundaries of this “opening for overflow” are formed by, and found within, portions of the erosion-control housing. - 24 - As noted above, “drain opening” does not need to be construed. This larger phrase containing the term “drain opening” also may not need to be construed, but the Court construes it because a jury of laypersons may not be familiar with how the word “define” is used. The most common meaning of the word “define” is “to state the precise meaning” of something or “[t]o describe the nature or basic qualities” of something. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language at 476 (4th ed. 2000). To “define” an opening, however, is to establish its boundaries. See id. (providing additional definitions of “define”: “2a. To delineate the outline or form of: gentle hills that were defined against the sky. b. To specify distinctly: define the weapons to be used in limited warfare. 3. To give form or meaning to . . . .”). The boundaries of an opening in an object are “defined” by that object because they are formed by, and found within, that object. This construction of the word “defined” in claim 9 is consistent with how the word is used in claim 6 and claim 12, the only other places in the ‘207 patent where the word is used.11 6. The term “filter support” (claim 9) The Court agrees with WIMCO that this term does not need to be construed. Both “filter” and “support” are ordinary words used in their ordinary senses. WIMCO proposes to define “filter support” to mean “[t]he portion of the erosion control housing that holds up, serves as a foundation for, serves as a prop for, or braces the filter.” JCCS - 26 - Lange asks the Court to define a “filter support to support a filter to filter water” as a “filter sock around a standpipe to filter water.” JCCS at 4; Def. Claim Constr. Br. at 39. It seems that Lange intends to argue that a “filter support to support a filter to filter water” should be construed to be a “standpipe [i.e., a filter support] to support a filter sock [i.e., a filter] to filter water.” The Court will not construe “filter” in this term to mean “filter sock.” The claim language is not so limited, and there is no more reason to limit a “filter” to a preferred embodiment (a “filter sock”) than there is to read a “standpipe” limitation into the claims. Given that a standpipe would necessarily be fitted with a filter around its circumference, i.e., a filter sock, Lange’s argument that “filter” means “filter sock” is really just a different way of arguing that “filter support” means “standpipe.” That argument has already been rejected. 8. The term “opening for overflow” (claim 12) The Court agrees with WIMCO that this term does not need to be construed. The words “opening for overflow” are ordinary words, and nothing in the intrinsic evidence requires those words to be given some unusual meaning. The Court therefore rejects Lange’s argument that an “opening for overflow” is necessarily the “top opening of [a] standpipe.” JCCS at 4; Def. Claim Constr. Br. at 39-40. As the Court has already explained, claim 9 (from which claim 12 depends), like claim 6, is not limited to basins with standpipes. Accordingly, although an “opening for overflow” could be the top of a standpipe (as it is in the preferred embodiments disclosed in the ‘207 patent), it does not have to be the top of a standpipe. 9. The term “below the open top and above the drain opening to form a drain” (claim 12) The Court construes this term to mean: - 27 - below the open top of the erosion-control housing and above the drain opening to form a drain. The Court’s construction simply clarifies what is already implicit in the claim language — that the “open top” in the term “below the open top and above the drain opening to form a drain” is the “open top of the erosion control housing.” This is clear from claim 9, upon which claim 12 depends. Claim 9 defines the claimed “erosion control housing” as “having an open top . . . .” ‘207 Patent col. 4:60-61. The “open top” in claim 12 is necessarily the “open top” of the erosion-control housing referred to in claim 9. Lange asks the Court to construe this term to mean “below the open top erosion control housing and above the standpipe hole in the bottom of the erosion control housing.” JCCS at 4; Def. Claim Constr. Br. at 40-41. The first portion of Lange’s proposed construction is not substantially different from the construction adopted by the Court. (Lange proposes “the open top erosion control housing,” whereas the Court uses the words “the open top of the erosion control housing.”) As noted above in connection with the term “drain opening,” Lange is really asking the Court to construe the term “drain opening” within this longer term. According to Lange’s proposed construction of this longer term, a “drain opening” is a “standpipe hole in the bottom of the erosion control housing.” JCCS at 4; Def. Claim Constr. Br. at 40-41. The Court has already rejected Lange’s attempt to define a “drain opening” as being a hole for the bottom of a standpipe. The term “drain opening” in this term has the meaning that the Court has already given it above. - 28 - IV. CONCLUSION In light of the patent’s specification (including the claims), the prosecution history, the purpose of the ‘207 patent as disclosed in the intrinsic evidence, and the ordinary meaning of the claim language, the Court construes the disputed claim language as stated above. Dated: December 14, 2007 s/Patrick J. Schiltz Patrick J. Schiltz United States District Judge |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| By visiting this page or clicking the "submit" button above, you agree that you have read and accept this "disclaimer". |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright ©
Michael E. Douglas, Attorney at Law, Saint Paul MN. All Rights
Reserved. Minnesota Law Firm representing Personal Injury, Car / Auto Accident, Workers Compensation, Medical Malpractice, Social Security Disability claims. Dedicated to Injured Workers, Victims of Negligence, Car Accidents, Victims of Fraud, and those in need of legal assistance. |
