Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Grp., Inc.
Decision Date | 31 January 2019 |
Docket Number | 2018-1205,2018-1360 |
Citation | 914 F.3d 1347 |
Parties | DUNCAN PARKING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Appellant v. IPS GROUP, INC., Appellee IPS Group, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Duncan Solutions Inc., Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc., CivicSmart, Inc., Defendants-Appellees |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Stuart Alan Raphael, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant in 2018-1205. Also represented by Daniel George Vivarelli, Jr., Steven Leslie Wood.
Richard Torczon, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, Washington, DC, argued for appellee in 2018-1205. Also represented by Matthew A. Argenti, Palo Alto, CA; Douglas H. Carsten, San Diego, CA; Michael T. Rosato, Seattle, WA.
Douglas H. Carsten, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC, San Diego, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant in 2018-1360. Also represented by Nathaniel Ryan Scharn, James Patrick Healy Stephens ; Adam William Burrowbridge, Washington, DC; Christopher D. Mays, Palo Alto, CA.
Joshua M. Kalb, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for defendants-appellees in 2018-1360. Also represented by Daniel George Vivarelli, Jr., Stuart Alan Raphael, Washington, DC.
Before Lourie, Dyk, and Taranto, Circuit Judges.
IPS Group Inc. ("IPS") appeals from two decisions of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granting summary judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patents 8,595,054 ("the ’054 patent") — IPS Grp., Inc. v. Duncan Sols., Inc. , No. 15-CV-1526-CAB-(MDD), 2017 WL 5973337 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2017) (" ’054 Decision ")—and 7,854,310 ("the ’310 patent")— IPS Grp., Inc. v. Duncan Sols., Inc. , No. 15-CV-1526-CAB-(MDD), 2017 WL 3530968 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2017) (" ’310 Decision ") (collectively, the "1360 Appeal").
Duncan Parking Technologies Inc. ("DPT") appeals from a related decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("the Board"), Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Grp., Inc. , No. IPR2016-00067, Paper 29 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2017) ("Board Decision "), modified on reh’g , Paper 37 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2017) ("Rehearing Decision "), in an inter partes review holding that claims 1–5 and 7–10 of the ’310 patent were not shown to be unpatentable as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) (the "1205 Appeal"). We address these appeals together in this combined opinion.
We reverse the Board’s decision in the 1205 Appeal that claims 1–5 and 7–10 of the ’310 patent are not unpatentable as anticipated. We affirm the district court’s decision in the 1360 Appeal granting summary judgment of noninfringement of the ’310 patent. Finally, we vacate the district court’s decision in the 1360 Appeal granting summary judgment of noninfringement of the ’054 patent because the district court erred in construing the claims too narrowly, and we remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the claim construction we set forth.
IPS designs parking meter technology. It is run by founder and CEO Dave King and Chief Technical Officer Alexander Schwarz. Both are electrical engineers by training. The company manufactured multi-space parking meters from its founding in 1994 until it changed its focus to cellular phone technology around 2000. According to King, he conceived the idea for a credit-card enabled, solar-powered, single-space parking meter in May 2003, when he had trouble finding change to pay for a parking meter in Newport Beach, California. IPS began work on the project shortly thereafter, and King consulted with Schwarz as he developed his idea. Eventually, King decided that IPS could gain greater market access by offering a retrofit device that replaces the internal components of an existing parking meter, rather than a costly replacement of the entire meter.
King identified "two big hurdles" to developing IPS’s single-space parking technology: (1) designing a device with all of the requisite components that could easily retrofit existing parking meter housings and (2) integrating the electronic components and designing software and a controller to coordinate the electrical system. J.A. 1336.1 To assist with the first challenge, IPS engaged a design firm, D+I, in November 2004 and provided it with a list of desired components and functionalities that King purportedly conceived, including a credit card reader, a solar panel, and a switch pad, among others.
King assigned Schwarz responsibility for "figuring out how to implement the electronics." J.A. 1337. According to King, "[Schwarz’s] inventive contribution [was] limited to conception and development of how the various electrical components of the meter are interconnected and operate together." J.A. 1345. Schwarz sourced the electronic components, and generally took responsibility for solving electronics obstacles. In July 2005, Schwarz compiled a list of electrical components to be included in the device, along with product specifications for many of them, and drew a block diagram conceptualizing the electrical connections between the components. A slightly modified version of that block diagram was later disclosed in the ’054 patent as Figure 8, illustrating "[t]he various electrical and other components of the parking meter device." ’054 patent col. 4 ll. 15–16.
The ’310 and ’054 patents are similar but do not have the same specifications. The ’054 patent issued in 2013 from a PCT application filed on December 4, 2006, naming King and Schwarz as inventors. It claims a credit card-enabled, solar-powered, single-space parking meter device that can be used to retrofit the internal components of existing parking meters. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and is representative:
’054 patent col. 5 l. 43–col. 6 l. 17 (emphasis added).
The ’310 patent issued in 2010 from an application filed on February 27, 2008, more than a year after the ’054 patent ’s application had been filed, naming as inventors King and three engineers from D+I, Murray Hunter, Mathew Hall, and David Jones. It claims a credit card-enabled, solar-powered, single-space parking meter. Claim 9 is exemplary:
’310 patent col. 4 l. 36–col. 5 l. 8 (emphases added).
The patents disclose closely...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
BASF Corp. v. SNF Holding Co.
...country" more than one year before the applicant’s filing date. Anticipation is a question of fact, Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Grp., Inc., 914 F.3d 1347, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334-35 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ), but our interpretation of the Patent Act i......
-
Cal. Expanded Metal Prods. Co. v. Klein
...the same way to obtain the same result" as each claim limitation of the patented product. Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Grp., Inc. , 914 F.3d 1347, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co., 339 U.S. 605, 608, 70 S.Ct. 854, 94 L.Ed. 1097 (1950) ).The......
-
VariBlend Dual Dispensing Sys. LLC v. Crystal Int'l (Grp.) Inc.
...infringement, every limitation set forth in a claim must be found in an accused product, exactly." Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Grp., Inc., 914 F.3d 1347, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Alternatively, "[u......
-
Focus Prods. Grp. Int'l, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co.
...would require highly persuasive evidentiary support, which is wholly absent in this case"); see also Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Grp., Inc. , 914 F.3d 1347, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2019).8 For these reasons, the Court concludes that defendants have failed to raise a triable issue of fact as ......
-
Will The Real "Another" Please Stand Up?
...Id.at *8. On appeal, the Federal Circuit conducted the three-step analysis set out in Duncan Parking Techs., Inc. v. IPS Grp., Inc., 914 F.3d 1347, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2019), [T]he Board must (1) determine what portions of the reference patent were relied on as prior art to anticipate the claim......
-
The Evolving Landscape of Disparaging and Scandalous Trademarks: Historical and Public Relations Perspectives
...the Federal Circuit reversed the decision. Inventive Entity/Anticipation Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc. v. IPS Group, Inc. , 914 F.3d 1347, 129 U.S.P.Q.2d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s decision that certain claims were not unpatentable, affirmed the distr......
-
Debunking Copyright Myths
...the Federal Circuit reversed the decision. Inventive Entity/Anticipation Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc. v. IPS Group, Inc. , 914 F.3d 1347, 129 U.S.P.Q.2d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s decision that certain claims were not unpatentable, affirmed the distr......
-
Chapter §7.06 Loss of Right/Statutory Bars Under §102(b)
...exploited") (citing Invitrogen, 424 F.3d at 1379–1380).[477] 104 U.S. 333, 335 (1881).[478] Barry, 914 F.3d at 1327.[479] Barry, 914 F.3d at 1347–1348 (Prost, C.J., dissenting in part).[480] Barry, 914 F.3d at 1327–1328.[481] Barry, 914 F.3d at 1338 (Prost, C.J., dissenting in part) (citing......
-
Protecting Plant Inventions
...the Federal Circuit reversed the decision. Inventive Entity/Anticipation Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc. v. IPS Group, Inc. , 914 F.3d 1347, 129 U.S.P.Q.2d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s decision that certain claims were not unpatentable, affirmed the distr......