Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc.

• Citation: 325 F.3d 1306
• Decision Date: 01 April 2003
• Docket Number: No. 01-1083.,No. 01-1063.,01-1063.,01-1083.
• Parties: MOBA, B.V., Staalkat, B.V., and FPS Food Processing Systems, Inc., Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants, v. DIAMOND AUTOMATION, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

325 F.3d 1306

MOBA, B.V., Staalkat, B.V., and FPS Food Processing Systems, Inc., Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants, v. DIAMOND AUTOMATION, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-1063.

No. 01-1083.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dediced: April 1, 2003.

Rehearing Denied April 25, 2003.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Jon A. Baughman, Pepper Hamilton LLP, of Philadelphia, PA, argued for plaintiffs-cross appellants. With him on the brief were Erik N. Videlock and Nicole D. Galli. Of counsel on the brief were Marvin Petry and Linda R. Poteate, Larson & Taylor, of Alexandria, VA.

Albert J. Breneisen, Kenyon & Kenyon, of New York, NY, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were John W. Bateman and Sheila Mortazavi.

Before RADER, SCHALL, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed PER CURIAM. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judges RADER, and BRYSON.

PER CURIAM.

At trial, a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that Moba, B.V., Staalkat, B.V., and FPS Food Processing Systems, Inc. (collectively FPS) did not infringe patents assigned to Diamond Automation, Inc. (Diamond). See Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., No. 95-CV-2631, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15483, at *43, 2000 WL 1521621 (E.D.Pa. Sept. 29, 2000). In response to a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), the district court correctly discerned that substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict that machines sold by FPS and used by its customers do not practice the method of United States Patent No. 4,519,494 ('494 patent). However, no reasonable jury could find that machines sold by FPS and used by its customers do not practice the method of United States Patent No. 4,519,505 ('505 patent). Thus, this court affirms-in-part, reverses-in-part, and remands for a determination of damages.

I.

Diamond is a Michigan corporation that manufactures and sells high-speed egg processing machines to sort batches of eggs into different categories by weight and quality. Diamond developed these machines during the early 1980s with technology that significantly increased the processing speed for eggs. Diamond obtained various patents covering aspects of that technology, including the '494 and '505 patents, and United States Patent Nos. 4,569,444 ('444 patent) and 4,505,373 ('373 patent). While Diamond asserted all of these patents at trial, only the '505 and '494 patents appear in this appeal. The '505 patent relates generally to "front end" processing of eggs, while the '494 patent relates generally to "back end" processing of eggs.

The "front end" process first washes the eggs, then introduces them into a candling station where a high intensity light source checks the eggs for defects such as blood spots or cracks. The process then weighs the eggs. A computer stores this information for use in sorting the eggs at a later point. Figure 2 of the '505 patent illustrates an embodiment of the invention designed to weigh eggs and to lift them to an overhead conveyor.

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

Claim 24 of the '505 patent corresponds generally to the subject matter of Fig. 2:

24. A method for advancing a plurality of rows of eggs from a candling station through a plurality of weighing stations in an egg grading apparatus, comprising,

conveying eggs from said candling station to elongated guide means disposed adjacent to said candling station,

continuously advancing said eggs on said guide means through said weighing stations,

simultaneously with said step of advancing, weighing said eggs at said weighing stations,

guiding said eggs from said weighing stations first to a plurality of egg holding stations located downstream of said guide means and then to a plurality of locations longitudinally spaced-apart from and substantially horizontally co-planar with said holding stations,

guiding further eggs to said plurality of holding stations, and lifting said eggs simultaneously from said holding stations and said plurality of longitudinally spaced-apart locations.

'505 patent, col. 13, ll. 33-54 (emphasis added).

The "back end" process receives eggs from "front end" processing and transfers them to an overhead conveyor. This conveyor carries the eggs in rows until dropping off each individual egg at a different receiving station based on the information in the computer. At each station, the eggs are either packaged or discarded. Figure 8 of the '494 patent illustrates an embodiment of the invention designed to receive eggs from an overhead conveyor for transport to a packer:

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

Claim 28 of the '494 patent corresponds generally to the subject matter of Fig. 8:

28. A method of transferring eggs delivered in spaced-apart aligned relationship by a first conveyor means to a receiving station, comprising the steps of,

delivering eggs to said receiving station in parallel spaced apart rows on said first conveyor means,

releasing eggs from said first conveyor means at the receiving station in accordance with a predetermined requirement,

positioning a receiving means below the first conveyor means so as to receive therein and deliver to a common member the eggs released from the parallel spaced-apart rows of the first conveyor means,

receiving said eggs in the receiving means disposed at said receiving station whereby the released eggs from both said parallel spaced apart rows of eggs fall on and are received by said receiving means,

rotating the receiving means downwardly and away from said first conveyor means to urge the received eggs downwardly,

guiding said eggs received in said receiving means downwardly and away from said receiving means, and

conveying said eggs away from said receiving means on second conveyor means,

said step of releasing comprising releasing said eggs successively from said first conveyor means at said receiving station along the length of said receiving means, and said step of conveying comprising conveying said eggs individually in rows away from said receiving means on said second conveyor means.

'F494 patent, col. 12, ll. 9-40 (emphasis added).

Moba, B.V., and Staalkat, B.V., are Dutch companies that also manufacture and sell high-speed egg processing machines, such as the Moba Omnia and the Staalkat Selecta. FPS Food Processing, a Pennsylvania corporation, sells Moba's and Staalkat's egg processing machines in the United States. In the United States market, FPS and Diamond are the only significant competitors in the manufacture and sale of high-speed egg processing machines.

In 1994, Diamond filed a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against FPS. The district court dismissed that case for lack of personal jurisdiction. In 1995, FPS filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania seeking a declaratory judgment that the '444, '494, '373, and '505 patents are invalid and not infringed by the Moba Omnia and the Staalkat Selecta. Diamond filed a declaratory judgment counterclaim that the patents are valid and infringed. After discovery, the district court construed the patent claims. Then a jury heard the case from January 28, 2000 to February 25, 2000. On February 22, 2000, before the jury retired to consider its verdict, Diamond moved for entry of JMOL under Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that FPS infringed and induced infringement of the four patents. In its February 25, 2000 verdict, the jury found that those patents were not invalid and not infringed. On March 6, 2000, the district court denied Diamond's February 22, 2000 JMOL motion, and entered judgment in favor of Diamond on the validity issues and in favor of FPS on the infringement issues. Diamond renewed its motion for JMOL regarding infringement, which the district court again denied.

Diamond argues that claim 24 of the '505 patent and claim 28 of the '494 patent cover methods used in both the Moba Omnia and the Staalkat Selecta. Diamond also contends that FPS has induced its customers to infringe those claims by selling them the Moba Omnia and the Staalkat Selecta and by training them to use those machines. Diamond appeals, therefore, the district court's denial of JMOL on these issues. FPS cross-appeals the jury's determination that claim 24 of the '505 patent and claim 28 of the '494 patent are not invalid. Because Diamond no longer pursues any claims arising from the '444 or '373 patents, or claim 34 of the '494 patent, this court need not address those questions. This court has jurisdiction over the present appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (2000).

II.

This court reviews claim construction without deference. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454, 46 USPQ2d 1169, 1172 (Fed.Cir.1998) (en banc). This court accords substantial deference to a jury's factual application of a claim construction to the accused device in an infringement determination. Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Eng'g Corp., 216 F.3d 1343, 1348-49, 55 USPQ2d 1161, 1164 (Fed.Cir.2000).

This court reviews a district court's denial of JMOL without deference, reversing only if substantial evidence does not support a jury's factual findings or if the law cannot support the legal conclusions underpinning the jury's factual findings. Cybor Corp., 138 F.3d at 1454. "A district court may overturn a jury's verdict only if upon the record before the jury, reasonable jurors could not have reached that verdict." LNP Eng'g Plastics, Inc. v. Miller Waste Mills, Inc., 275 F.3d 1347, 1353, 61 USPQ2d 1193, 1197 (Fed.Cir.2001).

Claim language defines claim scope. SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121, 227 USPQ 577, 586 (Fed. Cir.1985) (en banc). As a general rule, claim language is given the ordinary meaning of the words in the normal usage of the field...