Izumi Products Company v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., No. 04-1418 (Fed. Cir. 7/7/2005), 04-1418.
| Decision Date | 07 July 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-1423.,No. 04-1418.,04-1418.,04-1423. |
| Parties | IZUMI PRODUCTS COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V., PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, and PHILIPS DOMESTIC APPLIANCES AND PERSONAL CARE B.V., Defendants-Cross Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge LOURIE. Concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part opinion filed by Circuit Judge LINN.
Izumi Products Company ("Izumi") appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granting summary judgment of noninfringement of United States Patent 5,408,749 in favor of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Philips Electronics North America Corp., and Philips Domestic Appliances and Personal Care B.V. (collectively "Philips"). Izumi Prods. Co. v. Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V., 315 F. Supp. 2d 589 (D. Del. 2004). Philips cross-appeals from the decision of the district court denying its motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the '749 patent. Because we agree with the district court that Philips does not infringe the '749 patent and that Philips did not prove that the patent was invalid on the ground of anticipation by Japanese Patent Publication 55-47879, we affirm.
The patent in this case generally relates to electric rotary razors. Conventional electric rotary razors are designed with a stationary ring of outer cutter blades and a rotating ring of inner cutter blades. An example of an inner cutter and an outer cutter is shown below in figures 2 and 3, respectively, as they appear in the patent.
When such razors are applied to a skin surface to be shaved, the hairs on the skin pass through openings in the outer cutter and are sheared off by the inner cutter blades. To provide a close shave, electric rotary razors may use springs to keep the cutting edge surface of the inner cutter blades in constant contact with the bottom surface of the outer cutter blades. According to the patent specification, the shortcomings of such conventional electric rotary razors include sheared hairs adhering to the rear side surface of the inner cutter blades. '749 patent, col. 1, ll. 41-47. Another shortcoming of conventional electric rotary razors is that they have a relatively large area of contact between the surfaces of the outer and inner cutters. Id., col. 1, ll. 65-68. These shortcomings result in conventional rotary razors having increased frictional resistance between the two cutters, increased power consumption, and reduced rotational speed of the inner cutter. Id., col. 1, ll. 47-55, 65-68. The increased frictional resistance also generates heat on the surface of the outer cutter that touches the skin, thereby causing discomfort. Id., col. 1, ll. 56-61.
The patented invention seeks to improve upon conventional electric rotary razors by reducing the surface area of the cutting edge surface of the inner cutter blades and by designing the inner cutter blades so that shaving debris does not easily adhere to its rear side surface. Id., col. 2, ll. 19-28. To achieve both of these results, the patent specification discloses an inner cutter blade with the rear portion of the cutting edge surface removed. Id., col. 2, ll. 40-48; Id. col. 4, ll. 56-58. As illustrated below in the embodiments shown in figures 4 and 5, the specification further discloses that an inner cutter blade (40) with a cutout (40(a)), or recess, having a cutout angle θ of 90 degrees (figure 4) or less (figure 5) between the cutting edge surface (41) and the rear side surface of the inner cutter blade, will reduce shaving debris adhesion to the rear side surface of the inner cutter blade. Id., col. 4, l. 58 to col. 5, l. 8.
The specification contrasts the embodiments of the invention shown in figures 4 and 5 with the inner cutter blade (4) of a conventional electric rotary razor, shown below in figure 8, which does not have a cutout. Without the cutout, the rear side surface (4(b)) of the inner cutter blade is parallel to the front side surface, and the angle between the rear side surface and the cutting edge surface is greater than 90 degrees. Id., col. 5, ll. 9-13. According to the patent specification, because this angle is greater than 90 degrees, shaving debris (5) will not be prevented from adhering to the rear side surface. Id.
In March 2002, Izumi filed suit against Philips alleging infringement of the '749 patent. Specifically, Izumi accused 116 different electric rotary razor models manufactured by Philips of infringing the '749 patent. Izumi Prods., 315 F. Supp. 2d at 596. All of the accused electric rotary razors have semi-cylindrical grooves on the rear side surface of the inner cutter blades. Moreover, the grooves are cut at an angle so that the rear side surface is parallel to the front side surface, resulting in a cutout angle θ of greater than 90 degrees, similar to the prior art inner cutter blade shown in figure 8 above. Philips denied Izumi's allegations of infringement and filed counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity. Izumi asserted all three claims of the '749 patent in the district court proceeding.
Claim 1, one of two independent claims of the '749 patent, reads as follows:
An electric razor comprising;
at least one outer cutter with openings through which whiskers penetrate;
at least one inner cutter having a plurality of cutter blades, each one of said cutter blades having a cutting edge surface at an upper end thereof that slides on an inside surface of said outer cutter, said cutter blades being inclined in a direction of rotation of said inner cutter; and
a recess comprising an indentation formed immediately beneath said cutting edge surface and facing in a direction opposite from said direction of rotation of said inner cutter in each one of said plurality of cutter blades whereby said cutting edge surface is made thinner than a thickness of said cutter blade.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and it includes limitations regarding a cutter disk and the orientation of cutter arms relative to said cutter disk. Claim 3, the other independent claim, reads as follows:
An inner cutter used in an electric rotary razor comprising:
a cutter disk with a through hole at a center thereof;
a plurality of cutter arms extending from an outer edge of said cutter disk in a vertical direction relative to said cutter disk;
a cutter blade extending from each one of said cutter arms and inclined in a rotational direction of said inner cutter, each one of said cutter blades being provided with a cutting edge surface at an end surface of said cutter blade and with a recess formed below said cutting edge surface; and wherein
said recess is formed on a rear surface of said cutter blade, said rear surface facing an opposite direction from the rotational direction of said inner cutter.
Izumi moved for summary judgment of infringement and Phillips moved for summary judgment of noninfringement. Following the parties' respective motions, the district court construed the limitations "a recess comprising an indentation formed immediately beneath said cutting edge surface" and "a recess formed below said cutting edge surface" of claims 1 and 3, respectively. Izumi Prods. Co. v. Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V., No. 02-156-SLR, 2004 WL 1043375, at *1 (D. Del. Apr. 27, 2004). Both limitations were construed to mean "A cut out formed directly under the cutting edge surface and oriented in a horizontal direction, parallel to the cutting edge surface." Id. In reaching this construction, the court relied on the specification, which states: "It is . . . possible to form a recess of a great amount of indentation on the upper rear side surface of the cutter blade so that the recess is located immediately beneath the rear edge of the cutting edge surface that is on the opposite side from the direction of rotation of the inner cutter." Id. . The court further noted that "[t]he specification explains that the purpose for the cut out is to prevent shaving debris from adhering to the surface of the inner cutter." Id.
After construing the claim limitations, the court addressed whether the accused products, as a matter of law, met the "recess beneath/recess below" limitations. In granting summary judgment of no literal infringement,1 the court found that the inner cutter blades of the accused products have grooves that are positioned at or begin flush with the cutting edge surface, as opposed to having a recess lying immediately below the cutting surface, as the claim requires. Izumi Prods., 315 F. Supp. 2d at 598-99. Moreover, the court noted that the grooves are not oriented in a horizontal direction or parallel to the cutting edge surface. Id.
The district court also granted Philips' motion to preclude Izumi's expert witness, Dr. Charles E. Benedict, from testifying regarding infringement by the accused products under the doctrine of equivalents. Id. at 602. Although Dr. Benedict was qualified as an expert, the court questioned the reliability of his opinion on the effect of turbulence on shaving debris adhesion to the rear side surface of the inner cutter blades of an electric rotary razor. Id. The court noted that Dr. Benedict's proffered opinion was not supported by tests conducted on the accused products and that the opinion did not cite any supporting literature. Id. Moreover, the court determined that there was no valid scientific connection between Dr. Benedict's turbulence theory and the way the grooved inner cutter blade of the accused products functions. Thus, the court found that Dr. Benedict's testimony could potentially confuse the jury, and it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial