Mark I Marketing Corp. v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 95-1101
Decision Date | 14 September 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 95-1101,95-1101 |
Citation | 36 USPQ2d 1095,66 F.3d 285 |
Parties | MARK I MARKETING CORPORATION and Mark I Marketing Corporation of America, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Eliot S. Gerber, Wyatt, Gerber, Burke & Badie, New York City, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Of counsel was Terence W. McMillin, Gerstmen, Ellis & McMillin, Ltd., Chicago, IL.
Thomas F. Ryan, Sidley & Austin, Chicago, IL, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Constantine L. Trela and John W. Treece. Also on the brief was Richard S. Phillips, Wood, Phillips, VanSanten, Clark & Mortimer, Chicago, IL.
Before NIES, MAYER, and LOURIE, Circuit Judges.
Mark I Marketing Corporation and Mark I Marketing Corporation of America (collectively "Mark I") appeal from the order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granting summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company ("Donnelley"). Mark I Mktg. Corp. v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., No. 92 C 8380, 1994 WL 603884 (N.D.Ill. Nov. 1, 1994). Because prosecution history estoppel precludes Mark I from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, we affirm.
Color images in magazines, books, and newspapers are conventionally formed by a process that uses four printing plates and the four "process" inks (cyan, magenta, yellow, and black). In this process, four films or "separations" are first made by scanning an original color image with an electronic scanner or by photographing the image through different colored filters. 1 Once the separations are prepared, they are used to make four printing plates, each one corresponding to a process ink color. When used in combination, the printing plates generate a four-color image which, to the naked eye, appears to encompass the entire spectrum of colors and shades.
For certain printing applications, such as the printing of telephone directories, newspapers, and advertising flyers, the conventional four-color separation process is prohibitively expensive due to the need to prepare and use four printing plates. The invention disclosed and claimed in U.S. Patent 4,554,241 2 addresses this problem by providing a process for printing color images on paper using only two printing plates and two "non-process" inks. Wallace Edwards is the inventor of this process and the chairman and chief executive officer of Mark I. Edwards assigned his rights in the invention to Mark I. 3
The '241 patent discloses a process in which each of two printing plates is created by sequentially making two different filter exposures of an original color image on a separation film. The first printing plate, which prints red ink, is made by sequentially exposing a separation film through green and blue filters. The second plate, which prints another non-process ink such as green, blue, or black ink, is made by sequentially exposing a separation film through red and blue filters. Claim 1 of the patent, which is the focus of this litigation, defines the invention as follows:
1. A method of printing on a sheet member a realistic reproduction of a colored original, utilizing a minimum of two different superimposed impressions, each with a different coloring medium, comprising:
(d) providing a sheet member to receive two superimposed impressions, and
(e) using said first and second printing plates to print said red color and said different color, respectively, as the said superimposed impressions on said sheet member [emphasis added].
The patent specification indicates that either photographic or scanning techniques may be used to carry out the invention:
Each film is exposed sequentially through the two filters or with the equivalent two lights on [a] conventional scanner.
....
It is emphasized again that the interposition of actual colored filters between the original and a means for recording an optical image (such as a piece of film) is not the only way to create the appropriate printer. The presently available scanner machines accomplish the same effect by illuminating the original with light of a particular color. In the ... claims, reference is made to "making a ... filter exposure", etc., and it is to be understood that this wording is intended to embrace those techniques which do not actually require a physical filter to be interposed, but which achieve exactly the same effect as if the filter had been interposed.
Col. 3, ll. 42-44; col. 6, ll. 6-17.
Donnelley is in the business of producing Yellow Pages telephone directories. It prints color images for its directories using a commercially available Crosfield scanner and two non-process inks. The scanner focuses a single beam of white light on a small area (a "pixel") of the colored original. The light reflects back into the scanner where it is split into three separate light beams. The beams are then simultaneously filtered through red, green, and blue filters within the scanner. Next, the scanner senses the intensities of the beams and converts this information into digital values which are stored in memory. The scanner repeats this process for each pixel until the entire image has been scanned. To create separations, the scanner analyzes the stored data to determine the size and density of the various ink dots needed to replicate each pixel's color. It then converts the data into electrical impulses, sends the impulses to light sources (lasers or lamps), and pulses the light sources to expose tiny spots on separation films. Each spot of film is either exposed only once or is not exposed at all. The resulting separations are used to make printing plates, which in turn are used to print images in Donnelley's telephone directories.
Mark I sued Donnelley alleging infringement of the '241 patent. 4 Donnelley denied the allegation and moved for summary judgment of noninfringement, arguing that it did not literally infringe the patent because it did not use filters sequentially or make sequential exposures of film. In addition, Donnelley argued that its process was known and used before the '241 invention and therefore that the doctrine of equivalents was not applicable. See Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Assoc., 904 F.2d 677, 684, 14 USPQ2d 1942, 1948 (Fed.Cir.1990) (). Donnelley further argued that prosecution history estoppel precludes Mark I from establishing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. In response, Mark I essentially conceded that Donnelley did not literally infringe the '241 patent, but argued that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment in Donnelley's favor on Mark I's theory of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
The district court referred Donnelley's motion to a magistrate judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation on June 10, 1994. The magistrate judge determined that prosecution history estoppel precluded Mark I from proving infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and thus recommended that the court grant summary judgment of noninfringement. The district court, deciding the motion independently, granted summary judgment on a different ground. The court determined that Mark I did not refute Donnelley's factual assertion that the accused process was in the prior art and thus that it could not infringe the patent under the doctrine of equivalents. The court found that Mark I, through the affidavit of its expert, had only asserted that the '241 patent was not invalid, even though Donnelley never challenged the patent's validity. Thus, in the court's view Mark I failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact concerning Donnelley's theory of noninfringement. In granting summary judgment, the court found it unnecessary to determine whether prosecution history estoppel precluded Mark I from establishing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. This appeal followed.
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1576-77, 12 USPQ2d 1382, 1383 (Fed.Cir.1989). Thus, summary judgment may be granted when no "reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In determining whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, with doubts resolved in favor of the nonmovant. Transmatic, Inc. v. Gulton Indus., Inc., 53 F.3d 1270, 1274, 35 USPQ2d 1035, 1038 (Fed.Cir.1995). We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. Conroy v. Reebok Int'l, Ltd., 14 F.3d 1570, 1575, 29 USPQ2d 1373, 1377 (Fed.Cir.1994).
Mark I does not contest the court's determination that Donnelley did not literally infringe the '241 patent. Rather, Mark I...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
California Medical Products v. Tecnol Med. Prod., Civil A. No. 91-620-LON.
... ... 1565, 1569 (Fed.Cir.1983); see also Rawlplug Co. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 11 F.3d 1036, 1 (Fed.Cir.1993); ZMI Corp. v. Cardiac Resuscitator Corp., 844 F.2d 1576, ... to the claimed collar because Tecnol marketing literature describes the 911 collar as ... from a patent's prosecution history." Mark I Marketing Corp. v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., ... ...
-
Merck & Co., Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, CIVIL ACTION NO. 97-CV-4241 (E.D. Pa. 8/__/1998)
... ... 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, ... order to obtain allowance of the claims." Mark I Marketing Corp. v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., ... ...
-
Merck & Co., Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
... ... 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, ... order to obtain allowance of the claims." Mark I Marketing Corp. v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., ... ...
-
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.
...v. ATA Equip. Leasing, Inc., 872 F.2d 978, 987, 10 USPQ2d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Mark I Mktg. Corp. v. R.R. Donnelly & Sons Co., 66 F.3d 285, 291, 36 USPQ2d 1095, 1100 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Sextant Avionique, S.A. v. Analog Devices, 172 F.3d 817, 830-32, 49 USPQ2d 1865, 1870-72 (Fed. Cir.......
-
Without a Net: the Supreme Court Attempts to Balance Patent Protection and Public Notice in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co
...from the prosecution history, that the patentee relinquished to procure the patent); Mark I Marketing Corp. v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons, 66 F.3d 285, 291 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (indicating that the standard for ascertaining what subject matter was surrendered is measured from the standpoint of what ......
-
Without a Net: the Supreme Court Attempts to Balance Patent Protection and Public Notice in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co
...from the prosecution history, that the patentee relinquished to procure the patent); Mark I Marketing Corp. v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons, 66 F.3d 285, 291 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (indicating that the standard for ascertaining what subject matter was surrendered is measured from the standpoint of what ......
-
Reconsidering estoppel: patent administration and the failure of Festo.
...conclude from the prosecution history that an applicant surrendered it." (citing Mark I Mktg. Corp. v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 66 F.3d 285, 291 (Fed. Cir. Note that the entire analysis of prosecution history estoppel has long been understood to be an issue for the court to decide, de......