435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006), 05-1018, Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. International Trade Com'n
|Citation:||435 F.3d 1366|
|Party Name:||77 U.S.P.Q.2d 1625 ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, Inc. and EVEREADY BATTERY COMPANY, Inc., Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, and Pt International Chemical Industrial Co. Ltd., Intervenor, and Golden Power Industries, Ltd., Guangdong Chaoan Zhenglong Enterprise Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Tiger Head Battery Group Co., Ltd., Fujian Nanping Nanfu|
|Case Date:||January 25, 2006|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit|
Appealed from: United States International Trade Commission.
Randall G. Litton, Price, Heneveld, Cooper, DeWitt & Litton, LLP, of Grand Rapids, Michigan, argued for appellants. With him on the brief were Eugene J. Rath III and Matthew J. Gipson; Of counsel on the brief were V. James Adduci II and Maureen F. Browne, Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, L.L.P., of Washington, DC. Of counsel were Michael L. Doane, David F. Nickel, Sarah E. Hamblin and S. Alex Lasher .
Wayne W. Herrington, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, United States International Trade Commission, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. With him on the brief was James M. Lyons, General Counsel. Of counsel was Neal J. Reynolds, Attorney.
Kent R. Stevens, of Washington, DC, argued for intervenor PT International Chemical Industrial Co., Ltd.
Steven P. Hollman, Hogan & Hartson L.L.P., of Washington, DC, argued for intervenors Golden Power Industries, Ltd., et al. With him on the brief were Christopher T. Handman, Susan M. Cook and Jessica L. Ellsworth; Of counsel on the brief were William E. Thomson, Jr., Wei-Ning Yang, Yoncha L. Kundupoglu and Olga Berson, of Los Angeles, California. Of counsel was Robert B. Wolinsky .
Before NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge, and SCHALL, Circuit Judge .
PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
Energizer Holdings, Inc. and Eveready Battery Company, Inc. (collectively "
;EBC") appeal the ruling of the International Trade Commission in an action under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (19 U.S.C. §1337), holding all of the claims of EBC's United States Patent No. 5,464,709 ("the '709 Patent") invalid for failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶ 2.1 We reverse the holding of invalidity and remand for further proceedings.
The '709 patent is for an electrolytic alkaline battery cell that is substantially free of mercury. Alkaline battery cells typically contain an electrolyte such as potassium hydroxide, a metal oxide cathode such as manganese dioxide, and a zinc anode. A detrimental characteristic of alkaline cells has been corrosion of the zinc after partial discharge, producing hydrogen gas which exerts internal pressure, causing the cell to leak. A widely used corrosion inhibitor in such cells is mercury, which amalgamates with the zinc and inhibits hydrogen formation. Mercury, however, is an environmental pollutant, and extensive effort has been devoted to reducing or eliminating the mercury content in alkaline batteries.
The '709 patent describes the discovery that a cause of gas-producing corrosion is the presence of trace impurities in the zinc used in the anode, and that upon identification and elimination of these impurities, the addition of mercury can be eliminated or substantially reduced. The electrolytic cells at issue are described as "zero-mercury-added" batteries. EBC charged the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP