Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 June 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-1399.,No. 05-1325.,No. 05-1366.,No. 05-1105.,05-1105.,05-1325.,05-1366.,05-1399. |
| Citation | 449 F.3d 1209 |
| Parties | LIQUID DYNAMICS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VAUGHAN COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Steven C. Schroer, Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery, of Chicago, Illinois, argue for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were Mark W. Hetzler and Jon A. Birmingham.
Robert J. Carlson, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness PLLC, of Seattle, Washington, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief was Mark P. Walters. Of counsel was Ward Brown.
Before GAJARSA, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
This is the second time we have heard an appeal in this case. In the previous appeal, Liquid Dynamics ("LD") contested the claim construction and summary judgment of non-infringement entered against it. Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 355 F.3d 1361 (Fed.Cir.2004) ("LD I"). In that decision, we found error in the district court's claim construction, vacated the grant of summary judgment, and remanded for proceedings based on the revised claim construction. Id.
On remand, the district court held a six-day jury trial to determine whether Vaughan Company, Inc. ("Vaughan") infringed claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 5,458,414 ("the '414 patent") and whether the '414 patent was valid. On October 25 2004, the jury returned a verdict that Vaughan had infringed the '414 patent, that the infringement was willful, and that Vaughan failed to prove that the '414 patent was invalid. The jury awarded damages to LD in the amount of $1,183,722.
Subsequently, the district court held a bench trial on Vaughan's allegation of inequitable conduct, but granted LD's motion for judgment as a matter of law on that issue at the close of evidence. Final judgment was entered on November 15, 2004, and the district court subsequently denied Vaughan's judgment-as-a-matter-of-law ("JMOL") and new-trial motions on the issues of invalidity, infringement, and willfulness. Thereafter, the district court granted, in part, LD's motions for enhanced damages and attorney's fees. The court trebled the jury's damage award based upon the jury's willfulness finding and "Vaughan's behavior as a litigant." Separately, the court awarded attorney's fees amounting to $1,501,239. The court also entered a permanent injunction on February 25, 2005.
Vaughan now appeals the district court's denial of its JMOL motion for non-infringement, invalidity, no willful infringement, and unenforceability due to inequitable conduct. Further, Vaughan appeals the district court's orders for a permanent injunction, enhanced damages, and attorney's fees. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
The '414 patent involves a system of pumps that stir mixtures of solids and liquids in large 1,000,000-gallon tanks. The invention is primarily directed to applications for mixing wastewater and manure. Because we have already detailed the invention and its background in LD I, we reproduce only a summary of the relevant facts below:
This case involves the structure of slurry tanks. Slurry tanks are used to store and process chemicals and organic waste products (e.g., manure) that retain value as useful inputs (e.g., fertilizer) into other processes. Large storage tanks house these waste compounds in liquid or semisolid form between their production and their subsequent use. The liquid and solid components of these waste compounds tend to separate when stored, with solid particles either forming a crust on the top of the tank and/or falling to the bottom of the tank. Productive use of the stored compound requires remixing both to suspend the heavy solid particles within the liquid and to ensure that the resulting suspension is uniform. One standard approach has been to stir the mix continuously to avoid settling. Because continuous mixing can be expensive, however, tank designers sought ways to store the mixtures in a still tank, to allow the settling to occur, and to remix only when necessary for use. The '414 patent addressed these concerns.
Claims 1 and 8 are the contested claims in this case. The patent recites a method and apparatus for handling wastewater slurries: a storage tank equipped with submerged agitators capable of generating a flow of liquid throughout the tank. With the relevant language underlined, claim 1 reads:
1. Apparatus for storing a slurry having solid and liquid components, comprising:
a storage tank defining a volume for holding a body of liquid and solid slurry components, including a floor of generally circular configuration and having a center, said storage tank further including an outer surrounding wall positioned generally at a radial distance from the center;
at least two flow generating means positioned to be submerged within the liquid and solid slurry components for generating flow of at least one of the slurry components along a rotational direction, each of said flow generating means being disposed at distances from the center ranging between approximately 30 percent and 70 percent of said radial distance;
each of said first and second flow generating means being pointed toward the outer surrounding wall for generating a substantial helical flow path of the liquid and solid components therein with the liquid and solid components traveling outwardly, across the tank floor from the center portion of the tank toward the tank wall and then upwardly along the tank outer surrounding wall to a first point and then inwardly along an upper portion of the body toward the center of the tank and then downwardly toward the tank floor, and then outwardly to a second point spaced circumferentially in the direction of rotation of the entire body of liquid, the liquid and solid components continuing to travel in the helical path as the entire body of liquid and solid components continues to rotate;
a pressure source coupled to the first and second flow generating means to generate directed streams from the flow generating means to rotate the body of liquid and solid components and to cause the flow in the helical path; and
said flow generating means creating a substantially volume filling flow of at least one of the slurry components within said storage tank which mixes the liquid and solid slurry components to form a substantially homogeneous slurry suitable for unloading from said storage tank using liquid handling devices.
'414 Patent, col. 8, l. 56 — col. 9, l. 39 (emphases added). In LD I, we construed the term "substantial helical flow" to be "all flow patterns that are generally, though not necessarily perfectly, spiral, and that fill much, though not necessarily all, of the tank's volume." LD I, 355 F.3d at 1369. Claim 8 includes the relevant terms from claim 1. The written description includes the following examples of tank arrangement and helical flow path.
In Figure 7, impellers or pumps 20 that are placed within the claimed radii of r1 and r2 create the substantial helical flow as shown in Figures 5 and 6.
The inventors named in the '414 patent, James M. Crump and Bruce K. Doyle, Jr., were dealers for the A.O. Smith Corporation ("A.O.Smith") and sold A.O. Smith's tank agitation system containing a single, center-mounted, rotatable agitator nozzle, known as the Slurrystore system. According to Crump, in 1990 the inventors first became involved with the Slurrystore system when A.O. Smith asked them to help move a tank from a farm to a wastewater treatment plant in Plymouth, Indiana.
Commonwealth Engineering, Plymouth's engineering firm, redesigned the tank for use in the wastewater plant by moving the original agitator away from the tank center and adding a second agitator that was placed on the same radial line on the same side of the tank. The first and second agitators were placed at a distance of approximately 25 and 75 percent respectively, from the tank's center to the wall. The nozzles were designed to rotate in position so that the workers could agitate different sections and clean out the tank when needed. According to Crump, this new design did not help the mixing because the tank slurry was still only agitated in zones and not throughout the whole tank. At startup, the Plymouth tank did not operate properly until flow reducers were installed on the nozzles to impart more energy into the liquid volume. LD presented a video tape made in January of 1992 showing that flow occurred in only one section of the Plymouth tank and not the entire tank.
In the summer and fall of 1991, Crump and Doyle designed and sold the next relevant tank system to a hog processing plant called Indiana Packers. LD claims the Indiana Packers tank was the same as the Plymouth tank and did not embody the invention claimed by the '414 patent. Crump's diagrams and testimony suggest that the Indiana Packers tank was similar in layout to Plymouth and, like Plymouth, only mixed the liquid in zones.
In April of 1991, the inventors submitted a proposal to A.O. Smith asking that a patent application be filed for their invention for zone mixing within the Indiana Packers and Plymouth tanks. A.O. Smith declined to develop the proposal because it appeared that the invention, as described, was not patentable. Crump testified that in February of 1992, he and Doyle began to develop the idea for mixing throughout the entire tank volume instead of just mixing in one zone at a time, as the Plymouth and Indiana Packers designs provided. The '414 patent, incorporating the concept of volume-filling flow, was filed on May 7, 1992. Although the original application did not claim a substantially helical flow path, it was later amended to claim such a flow path....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eastman Kodak Co. v. Agfa-Gevaert N.V.
...Research, 793 F.2d at 1272 (noting "it is hornbook law that direct evidence of a fact is not necessary"); Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209 (Fed. Cir.2006), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 599, 166 L.Ed.2d 432 (2006) ("Though it is [patentee's] burden to prove infrin......
-
Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Usa, Inc.
...1268, 1274 (Fed. Cir.2001). There is no doubt that this is an accurate statement of the law. See, e.g., Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209, 1226-27 (Fed.Cir.2006) (quoting Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 326 F.3d 1226, 1234 (Fed.Cir.2003)); Akron Poly......
-
Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.
...‘routine details' that would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention.” Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., Inc., 449 F.3d 1209, 1223 (Fed.Cir.2006) (citation omitted). “The best mode requirement” also “does not extend to ‘production details,’ including com......
-
In re Omeprazole Patent Litigation
...inducement liability). Direct and induced infringement may both be proven through circumstantial evidence. Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209, 1219 (Fed.Cir.2006). Under contributory infringement, a party is liable if offers to sell or sells within the United States or impo......
-
Basics of Intellectual Property Laws for the Antitrust Practitioner
...it is still true that when determining willfulness, the 182. 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) (1)–(2). 183. See Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co,., 449 F.3d 1209, 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH v. Biocorp, Inc., 249 F.3d 1341, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (establishing willf......
-
Table of cases
...[1975] IsrSC 29(2) 513 ....................................................................... 401 Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................. 20 Littlejohn Fund II L.P. and Goodyear Chem. Europe, No. 080......
-
The United States of America
...v. Combustion Eng’g, 95 F.3d 1109, 1119-20 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 71. 35 U.S.C. § 284. 72. Id. 73. See Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209, 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Seagate Tech., 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 74. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006);......
-
Table Of Cases
...107. Table of Cases 237 Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 355 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004), 24. Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2006), 28. Litton Indus. Prods. v. Solid State Sys., 755 F.2d 158 (Fed. Cir. 1985), 96. Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal, Ltd., 781 F.2d......