Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co.
Decision Date | 29 January 2016 |
Docket Number | 2015–1389.,Nos. 2015–1331,s. 2015–1331 |
Citation | 811 F.3d 1334 |
Parties | AKZO NOBEL COATINGS, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendant–Cross–Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Elizabeth Gardner, Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by Michael D. Loughnane, Richard Delucia, Merri C. Moken.
Aaron A. Barlow, Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for cross-appellant. Also represented by Paul David Margolis, Harry J. Roper ; Joshua Segal, Washington, DC.
Before LOURIE, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. ("Akzo") appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granting summary judgment that Dow Chemical Company ("Dow") did not infringe the claims of U.S. Patent 6,767,956 ("the '956 patent"), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., No. 1:12–cv–01364 (D.Del. Jan. 26, 2015) ("Decision "). Dow cross-appeals from the court's conclusion that the claims of the '956 patent are not indefinite. Id. at 10–14. For the reasons that follow, we affirm both appeals.
Akzo owns by assignment the '956 patent, directed to an extrusion process that generates low viscosity aqueous polymer dispersions. '956 patent, at [57]. In order to achieve uniform distribution of the polymer in the aqueous medium, the specification notes that "the mixture cannot be heated above the boiling point of the carrier liquid, or else the liquid boils and it becomes impossible to disperse the polymer." Id. col. 1 ll. 57–59. The claimed invention aims to prevent such boiling, and thus achieve uniform polymer distribution, by maintaining the pressure in the extruder above atmospheric. Id. col. 2 ll. 26–33. Specifically, "[t]he pressure in the extruder [is] maintained by ... connecting the outlet of the extruder to a pressurized collection vessel." Id. col. 2 l.64–col. 3 l.1.
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows:
Id. col. 7 l.9–col. 8 l.4 (emphases added). Claim 2 further requires: "[a] process according to claim 1 which is carried out at a temperature of from about 5 to 150° C . above the melting point of the polymer. " Id. col. 8 ll. 5–7 (emphasis added).1
Dow's accused process, called BLUEWAVE™, uses an extruder to generate low viscosity polymer dispersions. In Dow's process, the dispersion exits the extruder, passes through a valve located at the extruder's outlet, and then travels through a series of pipes and heat exchangers. Joint App. ("J.A.") 1012, 1040–41. The dispersion then continues on through a filter and collects in a "Product Tote," an unpressurized compartment, eventually used to transport the end-product. J.A. 1012.
In October 2012, Akzo sued Dow for patent infringement, alleging that Dow's BLUEWAVE™ process infringed claims 1–8 of the '956 patent. In view of what it considered to be Akzo's failure to identify any "pressurized collection vessel" in the accused process, Dow sought leave of court to file an early summary judgment motion of noninfringement. J.A. 685–88. The district court granted the request and combined the summary judgment and Markman hearings. J.A. 52–53.
After the combined hearings, the district court first construed several disputed limitations. Decision at 6–14. It construed "pressurized collection vessel" as "tubing, piping, or other container where a desired material accumulates, which is maintained above atmospheric pressure." Id. at 6–7. The court reasoned that, to properly give meaning to the word "collection," "some amount of material must be permitted to accumulate within the vessel, rather than all of the material flowing through the vessel at a constant rate." Id. at 7. It specifically relied on two examples in the specification, Examples 2 and 3, id., which state: "[t]he dispersion was collected into a water-cooled pressurized vessel maintained under nitrogen at 7 bar and from which the dispersion, once cooled to below 100° C., could be periodically removed, " '956 patent col. 6 ll. 40–44, col. 7 ll. 1–4 (emphases added).
The district court next addressed and rejected Dow's contention that the limitation "viscosity below 10 Pa.s" rendered claims 1–8 indefinite. According to Dow, the limitation could be definite only if it incorporated a requirement that the viscosity be tested at a certain temperature; a failure to require such a temperature, Dow suggested, was fatal. The court disagreed, instead finding that "in context one of ordinary skill in the art would know with reasonable certainty that viscosity is to be measured at room temperature." Id. at 11. It accordingly construed "viscosity below 10 Pa.s" to mean "viscosity below 10 Pa.s at room temperature." Id. at 10.
The court then addressed and rejected Dow's contention that the limitation "carried out at a temperature of from 5 to 150° C. above the melting point of the polymer" rendered claims 2–6 indefinite. Specifically, Dow argued that the limitation failed to specify to which steps in the claimed process it applied, and that simply applying the limitation to every step, as the plain meaning suggests, would be irrational, for many steps require a temperature at or below 100° C. The court disagreed, however, instead finding that the specification explains that only a subset of steps in the claimed process occurs at elevated temperatures, id. at 14 ), and therefore "the limitation in claim 2 refers to the elevated temperature phases,"id. The court concluded: "Dow has provided no evidence to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know with reasonable certainty the steps to which the limitation in claim 2 applies." Id. It accordingly construed the limitation to mean "[t]he elevated temperature phases of claim 1 are carried out at a temperature of from 5 to 150° C above the melting point of the polymer." Id. at 13.
In light of the above constructions, the district court granted Dow's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of claims 1–8. In describing Dow's accused process, the court found that Id. at 17. That lack of accumulation precluded a finding of literal infringement. Indeed, as the court noted: "no reasonable juror could find that Dow's accused process uses a ‘pressurized collection [vessel]’ " because "a reasonable juror could only find that the accused BLUEWAVE™ process allows for the polymer dispersion to flow continuously." Id. The lack of accumulation likewise precluded a finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. As the court found, "[t]o allow Akzo to prevail on infringement by the doctrine of equivalents would vitiate the claim limitation that the ‘pressurized collection vessel’ be a ‘container where the desired material accumulates.’ " Id. at 18.
Akzo timely appealed and Dow timely cross-appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
We review the district court's grant of summary judgment under the law of the regional circuit, here, the Third Circuit. Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 769 F.3d 1371, 1377 (Fed.Cir.2014). Applying the law of the Third Circuit, we review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Nicini v. Morra, 212 F.3d 798, 805 (3d Cir.2000) (en banc). Summary judgment is proper when, drawing all justifiable inferences in the non-movant's favor, "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) ; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
Evaluation of summary judgment of noninfringement is a two-part inquiry: construing the claims and comparing the properly construed claims to the accused product. Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed.Cir.2009). We review de novo the ultimate interpretation of a claim term and the evidence intrinsic to the patent. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 831, 841, –– – L.Ed.3d –––– (2015). When a district court makes factual findings about extrinsic evidence, we review those subsidiary factual findings for clear error. Id. at 835, 841.
Infringement, whether literal or under the doctrine of equivalents, is a question of fact. Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc., 659 F.3d 1121, 1129–30 (Fed.Cir.2011). As such, it is amenable to summary judgment when no reasonable factfinder could find that the accused product contains every claim limitation or its equivalent. PC Connector Sols., LLC v. SmartDisk Corp., 406 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed.Cir.2005) ; see Warner–Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 29, 39 n. 8, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146 (1997).
On appeal, Akzo first faults the district court for narrowly construing "pressurized collection vessel" to require accumulation. Akzo argues that the term...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., Case No. 16 C 6097
...insubstantiality of the differences between the claimed invention and the accused device or process." Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 811 F.3d 1334, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Tex. Instruments Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 90 F.3d 1558, 1......
-
W. Plastics, Inc. v. Dubose Strapping, Inc.
...1375 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Definiteness is a legal question with underlying factual determinations. See Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 811 F.3d 1334, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Definiteness is determined "from the perspective of someone skilled in the relevant art" at the time the pate......
-
Janssen Pharm., Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.
...Indefiniteness is a question of law, which may rely on subsidiary determinations of underlying facts. Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co. , 811 F.3d 1334, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016). A patent is presumed to be valid; the challenger bears the burden of establishing invalidity by clear and ......
-
Smart Vent, Inc. v. USA Floodair Vents, Ltd.
...inquiry: claim construction by the court of the asserted claim terms as a matter of law, see, e.g., Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 811 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed.Cir.2016) ; Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Boehringer Ingelheim, GMBH, 237 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed.Cir.2001) ; Cybor Corp. v. FAS Tech......
-
After Nautilus: The Tension Between the Inherent Lack of Clarity of Language and Notice Function of Patent Law
...*4 (D.N.J. July 9, 2014). 49. Id. at *3 (emphasis added). 50. Dow Chem. Co. v. Nova Chems. Corp., 803 F.3d 620, 635 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 51. 811 F.3d 1334, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 52. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 53. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosi......