Indium Corp. of America v. Semi-Alloys, Inc., SEMI-ALLOY

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Citation781 F.2d 879,228 USPQ 845
Docket NumberNo. 85-2177,SEMI-ALLOY,INC,85-2177
Parties, 1986-1 Trade Cases 67,135 INDIUM CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Appellant, v., Appellee. Appeal
Decision Date26 December 1985

Roger W. Parkhurst, of Parkhurst & Oliff, Alexandria, Va., for appellant; Edward P. Walker, Parkhurst & Oliff, Thomas J. Wall, Bruns & Wall, Syracuse, N.Y., and Michael H. Stephens, Abelove, Seigel, Hester & Stephens, Utica, N.Y., of counsel.

Moses Silverman, of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York City, for appellee; Jay Greenfield and Thomas J. Fleming, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, of counsel. Also on brief were Michael I. Rackman, Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, New York City, and William J. Quinlan, Mead, Begley & Quinlan, Schenectady, N.Y.

Before RICH, BALDWIN and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

RICH, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from the February 25, 1985, final judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, granting defendant Semi-Alloys' motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice, 611 F.Supp. 379. We affirm.

Background

Both plaintiff-appellant, Indium Corporation of America ("Indium"), and defendant-appellee, Semi-Alloys, Inc. ("Semi-Alloys"), are New York corporations engaged in the manufacture of, inter alia, solder preforms or gold-tin "frames," used in the ceramic packaging of individual electronic components, e.g., semi-conductor devices. These frames can be sold and used separately or with a "tack-welded frame lid" in combination (also known as "combination covers"). Until 1981, Indium sold only the separate frames, the market for which has declined to almost nothing.

Semi-Alloys is the owner of three patents covering an "Hermetic Sealing Cover for a Container for a Semi-Conductor Device," and methods for fabricating an hermetically-sealed container and sealing cover therefor. In essence, the patents disclose a basic process for the manufacture of combination covers by the tack-welding technique.

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

The figure above from Semi-Alloys' U.S. Patent No. 3,823,468 illustrates how a semi-conductor device is hermetically sealed inside a ceramic container. The combination cover consists of two elements, the lid 13 and the frame 14. The lid is a piece of gold-plated metal, while the frame consists of gold-tin alloy solder in the shape of a picture frame.

The combination cover is made by tack-welding the lid and frame together. To seal the semi-conductor package, the frame 14 and lid 13 are aligned with a container 43 and then heated in a special furnace so that the frame melts and solders the lid to the container, sealing the semi-conductor device 45 inside the cavity 44.

In the early 1970's, there were at least four firms selling combination covers: Semi-Alloys, Williams Gold Refining Company ("Williams"), Plessey, and Consolidated Refining Corporation ("CRC"). In 1975, Semi-Alloys sued Plessey and Williams for infringement of one or more of its patents, the first of which issued on July 16, 1974. The suit against Plessey was settled soon after it was brought, and Plessey withdrew from the combination cover market. The litigation against Williams was settled several years later, and Williams remained in Indium began making and selling combination covers in early 1982, after purchasing CRC's equipment. This suit was filed on May 19, 1982, on the eve of Indium's first shipment of commercial quantities of combination covers and after Semi-Alloys had offered Indium a non-exclusive license under its patents by letter of February 22, 1982. Indium's complaint sought $40 million in antitrust damages and a declaratory judgment that Semi-Alloys' patents were invalid on the basis of 35 U.S.C. Sec. 102(b) (on sale more than one year prior to the application for a patent) and Sec. 103 (obviousness). Indium's antitrust claims were based on the theory that Semi-Alloys procured its patents by fraud and that this prevented Indium from entering the market for combination covers. Indium also sought relief under a pendent claim for unfair competition under New York State law.

the combination cover market. CRC left the market at the end of 1981, apparently to take advantage of a tax break that would not be available to it otherwise. By that time, Semi-Alloys supplied at least 75% of the market, and Williams supplied the remainder.

The decision from which Indium appeals is the district court's third major decision in this case, reported at 611 F.Supp. 379, 225 USPQ 1159 ("Indium III "). The district court's first two decisions involved the adequacy of Indium's original and amended complaints.

In Indium Corporation of America v. Semi-Alloys, Inc., 566 F.Supp. 1344, 219 USPQ 793 (N.D.N.Y.1983) ("Indium I "), the district court dismissed Indium's original complaint without prejudice, holding that Indium had failed to plead facts sufficient to show antitrust standing and that the complaint failed to demonstrate the existence of an actual controversy between the parties sufficient to confer declaratory judgment jurisdiction upon the district court.

As a result of that decision, Indium filed an amended complaint that the district court held to have alleged sufficient additional facts which, if true, could establish standing and jurisdiction. Indium Corporation of America v. Semi-Alloys, Inc., 591 F.Supp. 608, 224 USPQ 404 (N.D.N.Y.1984) ("Indium II ").

After its first two decisions on the sufficiency of the complaints, the district court limited initial discovery to the questions of jurisdiction and standing in anticipation of summary judgment motions on these threshold issues. At the close of discovery, Semi-Alloys moved for summary judgment, contending that the facts uncovered in discovery did not support the allegations contained in Indium's amended complaint. Indium contended that there were disputed issues of material fact which made summary judgment inappropriate.

The District Court's Decision

In granting Semi-Alloys' motion for summary judgment on the declaratory judgment claims, the district court found that Indium could not have had a reasonable apprehension of being sued on Semi-Alloys' patents, wherefore there was no justiciable controversy between the parties which would have given the district court subject matter jurisdiction over the patent claims. The district court therefore dismissed Counts II-IV of Indium's amended complaint.

The district court also held that to establish antitrust standing, Indium would have to show that it was injured by the wrongdoing of Semi-Alloys. The court found, however, that Indium had not presented any competent evidence that it was prepared to enter the tack-welded combination cover market at the time of its alleged harm, and also found that Semi-Alloys did not exclude Indium from the business because it had not attempted to enforce its patents against Indium. The district court thus dismissed Count I of Indium's amended complaint because Indium did not have standing to assert its antitrust claims.

Finally, the district court dismissed Indium's state law unfair competition claim, Count V of the amended complaint, pursuant

to United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 1139, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966), which held that pendent state law claims should be dismissed when all federal claims have been dismissed before trial.

OPINION
Antitrust Standing

Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15, limits standing to bring a private antitrust damage action to those "who shall be injured in [their] business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws." In Associated General Contractors v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (1983), the United States Supreme Court identified several specific criteria which lower courts should apply to ascertain whether a claim of injury is sufficient to establish antitrust standing within the meaning of section 4 of the Clayton Act. The criteria articulated by the Court included:

(1) whether there is a causal connection between an antitrust violation and harm to the plaintiff and the defendants intended to cause that harm;

(2) whether the nature of the plaintiff's alleged injury was of the type the antitrust laws were intended to forestall;

(3) the directness or indirectness of the asserted injury;

(4) whether the claim rests on some abstract or speculative measure of harm; and

(5) the strong interest in keeping the scope of complex antitrust trials within judicially manageable limits, avoiding both duplicative recoveries and the complex apportionment of damages.

459 U.S. at 537-45, 103 S.Ct. at 908-13.

Applying these criteria to Indium's allegations, the district court identified two specific elements that Indium would have to demonstrate in order to establish the necessary "causal connection" between Semi-Alloys' conduct and harm to Indium, and to demonstrate that the connection was not "abstract" or "speculative." In Indium II, the district court held that Indium would have to show that (1) it was ready, willing, and able to manufacture combination covers during the relevant period, and (2) Semi-Alloys' enforcement of its patents excluded Indium from doing so. Indium II, 591 F.Supp. at 613-14, 224 USPQ at 407-08.

Indium's antitrust claim is that it was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
147 cases
  • In re Gabapentin Patent Litigation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 27 Agosto 2009
    ...and the complex apportionment of damages. December 22 Opinion, 2000 WL 34213890, at *7-8; see also Indium Corp. of America v. Semi-Alloys, Inc., 781 F.2d 879, 882 (Fed.Cir.1985) (quoting Associated Gen. Contractors v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 534-45, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74......
  • Akzona Inc. v. EI du Pont de Nemours & Co., Civ. A. No. 84-10 LON.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • 2 Junio 1987
    ...of the circumstances' indicates that an `actual controversy' exists between the parties involved." Indium Corp. of America v. Semi-Alloys, Inc., 781 F.2d 879, 882 (Fed.Cir.1985), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 84, 93 L.Ed.2d 37 (1986) (noting Md. Casualty Co., 312 U.S. at 272, 61 S.C......
  • Cardtoons, L.C. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 27 Agosto 1996
    ...F.2d 171, 175 (5th Cir.1989) (copyright), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1058, 110 S.Ct. 869, 107 L.Ed.2d 953 (1990); Indium Corp. v. Semi-Alloys, Inc., 781 F.2d 879, 883 (Fed.Cir.1985) (trademark), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 820, 107 S.Ct. 84, 93 L.Ed.2d 37 (1986). The declaratory plaintiff bears the ......
  • ENVIRONMENTAL DYNAMICS v. ROBERT TYER AND ASSOC.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 21 Junio 1996
    ...plaintiff." Id. Thus, the declaratory plaintiff's subjective apprehension is not sufficient. Id. (citing Indium Corp. of Am. v. Semi-Alloys, Inc., 781 F.2d 879, 883 (Fed.Cir.1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 820, 107 S.Ct. 84, 93 L.Ed.2d 37 (1986)). Thus, "the `reasonable apprehension of suit' ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Proving Antitrust Damages. Legal and Economic Issues. Third Edition Part III
    • 8 Diciembre 2017
    ...Copperweld Corp., 691 F.2d 310 (7th Cir. 1982), rev’d on other grounds , 467 U.S. 752 (1984), 93 Indium Corp. of Am. v. Semi-Alloys, Inc., 781 F.2d 879 (Fed. Cir. 1985), 32 Indus. Burner Sys. v. Maxon Corp., 275 F. Supp. 2d 878 (E.D. Mich. 2003), 64 Industrial Diamonds Antitrust Litig., In ......
  • Antitrust Injury and Standing
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Proving Antitrust Damages. Legal and Economic Issues. Third Edition Part I
    • 8 Diciembre 2017
    ...or competitor because it merely solicited retail purchasers for defendant manufacturer); Indium Corp. of Am. v. Semi-Alloys, Inc., 781 F.2d 879, 882 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (no injury if plaintiff not prepared to enter markets); Risk v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., No. 04-CV-0333-CVE-FHM, 2006 U.S. Dis......
  • Antitrust Analysis of Unilateral Conduct by Intellectual Property Owners
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Intellectual Property and Antitrust Handbook. Second Edition
    • 6 Diciembre 2015
    ..., 331 F.3d at 711-12 ( Walker Process plaintiff lacked standing where unprepared to compete); Indium Corp. of Am. v. Semi-Alloys, Inc., 781 F.2d 879, 882 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (same); Silva v. Mamula, 1994 WL 66070, at *3 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (no antitrust injury where party brought antitrust “counte......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Intellectual Property and Antitrust Handbook. Second Edition
    • 6 Diciembre 2015
    ...Kan. 1997), as modified , 989 F. Supp. 1131, aff’d , 203 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000), 118, 126 Indium Corp. of Am. v. Semi-Alloys, Inc., 781 F.2d 879 (Fed. Cir. 1985), 223 Innomed Labs v. Alza Corp., 368 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2004), 127 In re Innotron Diagnostics, 800 F.2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1986),......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT