Maytag Corp. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.

• Decision Date: 19 January 2006
• Docket Number: No. C 04-4067-MWB.,C 04-4067-MWB.
• Parties: MAYTAG CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., d/b/a Frigidaire, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

411 F.Supp.2d 1008

MAYTAG CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., d/b/a Frigidaire, Defendant.

No. C 04-4067-MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.

January 19, 2006.

As Amended January 24, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Edmund J. Sease, Jeffrey D. Harty, R. Scott Johnson, McKee, Voorhees & Sease, PLC, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff.

Cherri T. Gregg, David M. Maxwell, Douglas L. Bridges, Frank G. Smith, John D. Haynes, Alston & Bird, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Richard J. Sapp, Nyemaster Goode Voigts West Hansell & O'Brien, PC, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED PATENT CLAIM TERMS

MARK W. BENNETT, Chief Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I.  INTRODUCTION ......................................................................1013
                      A.  Procedural Background .........................................................1013
                      B.  Factual Background ............................................................1016
                          1.  Prosecution and objectives of the patents-in-suit .........................1016
                          2.  The '909 patent ...........................................................1018
                          3.  The '809 patent ...........................................................1019
                      C.  Agreed Constructions ..........................................................1024
                      D.  Constructions Allegedly "In Dispute" ..........................................1024
                 II.  LEGAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................1034
                      A.  The Terms To Be Construed .....................................................1034
                          1.  What claim terms are "in dispute"? ........................................1034
                              a.  Arguments of the parties ..............................................1034
                              b.  Analysis ..............................................................1035
                          2.  What disputed terms must be construed? ....................................1036
                              a.  Arguments of the parties ..............................................1036
                              b.  Analysis ..............................................................1037
                

                B.  Principles Of Patent Claim Construction .......................................1039
                          1.  The Phillips methodology ..................................................1039
                              a.  The starting point ....................................................1039
                              b.  Hierarchy of evidence .................................................1039
                          2.  Other canons of claim construction ........................................1042
                          3.  Do the parties' proffered constructions limit the court's choices? ........1042
                      C.  Construction Of Disputed Claim Terms ..........................................1043
                          1.  Disputed terms in the '909 patent .........................................1043
                              a.  The disputed term in Claim 23: "Grooves" ..............................1043
                                    i.  Claim language ..................................................1043
                                   ii.  The parties' definitions and arguments ..........................1043
                                  iii.  Analysis ........................................................1045
                              b.  The disputed term in Claim 25: "Annular sidewall 
                                    diverging radially outwardly to an upper terminal edge" .............1047
                                     i.  Claim language .................................................1047
                                    ii.  The parties' definitions and arguments .........................1047
                                   iii.  Analysis .......................................................1049
                              c.  The disputed term in Claim 26: "Knit lines" ...........................1054
                                    i.  Claim language ..................................................1054
                                   ii.  The parties' definitions and arguments ..........................1054
                                  iii.  Analysis ........................................................1054
                              d.  The disputed term in Claim 27: "Burrs at the apertures" ...............1056
                                    i.  Claim language ..................................................1056
                                   ii.  The parties' definitions and arguments ..........................1056
                                  iii.  Analysis ........................................................1057
                          2.  Disputed terms in the '809 patent .........................................1060
                              a.  The first disputed term in Claim 7: "A base wall including a
                peripheral portion from which extends an annular sidewall
                that diverges radially outwardly to a terminal edge".................1060
                                    i.  Claim language ..................................................1060
                                   ii.  The parties' definitions and arguments ..........................1061
                                  iii.  Analysis ........................................................1062
                              b.  The second disputed term in Claim 7: "Cavity cover member
                spaced about an end of the mold core" ...............................1063
                                    i.  Claim language ..................................................1063
                                   ii.  The parties' definitions and arguments ..........................1064
                                  iii.  Analysis ........................................................1065
                              c.  The third disputed term in Claim 7: "Ejecting the washing
                machine basket ... by separating the mold core and cavity
                cover member and shifting the cavity sidewall member
                away from the mold core" ............................................1066
                                    i.  Claim language ..................................................1066
                                   ii.  The parties' definitions and arguments ..........................1067
                                  iii.  Analysis ........................................................1069
                              d.  The first disputed term in Claim 8: "Utilizing the core pins to
                aid in ejecting" ....................................................1073
                                    i.  Claim language ..................................................1073
                                   ii.  The parties' definitions and arguments ..........................1074
                                  iii.  Analysis ........................................................1075
                              e.  The second disputed term in Claim 8: "Core pins forcing the
                plastic washing machine basket to shift relative to the mold
                core" ...............................................................1076
                                    i.  Claim language ..................................................1076
                                   ii.  The parties' definitions and arguments ..........................1076
                                  iii.  Analysis ........................................................1077
                III.  CONCLUSION ........................................................................1078
                

This patent infringement action, which involves patents for plastic washing machine baskets and the process for making them, comes before the court for construction of disputed patent claim terms, i.e., for a ruling after a so-called "Markman hearing." See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996). Among the issues that the court must decide is whether it should construe only the seven patent claim terms that the plaintiff contends are in dispute in relation to its infringement claims or the nineteen terms identified by the defendant as in dispute and material to either the plaintiff's infringement claims or the defendant's invalidity defenses. A further issue is the extent to which any construction is required for claims that are to be given their "ordinary meaning."

As has been the case in nearly all of the patent litigation that has come before this court, these and the other pertinent issues are both hotly contested and ably argued by both sides, even where particular disputes seem, at first blush, to be merely nit-picky, if not downright implausible. In this context, one of the parties cited this apt excerpt from a remarkably wise children's story:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master — that's all."

LEWIS CARROLL, ALICE'S ADVENTURES IN WONDERLAND AND THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS 219 (George Stade ed., 2004) (1871) (emphasis in the original). The irony in this case is that it is not altogether clear to the court just who is being Humpty Dumpty.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiff Maytag Corporation (Maytag), a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Newton, Iowa, filed this patent infringement action on July 23, 2004, against defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc., doing business as Frigidaire (Electrolux), a Delaware corporation licensed to do business and doing business in Iowa and elsewhere, with its principal place of business in Cleveland, Ohio, but with manufacturing facilities in this District. Maytag alleges in its Complaint (docket no. 2) that Electrolux is willfully infringing two patents assigned to Maytag: U.S. Patent No. 5,881,909 (the '909 patent), entitled "PLASTIC WASHING MACHINE BASKET," and U.S. Patent No. 5,980,809 (the '809 patent), entitled "METHOD FOR MOLDING A PLASTIC WASHING MACHINE BASKET." Maytag seeks judgments of infringement and willful infringement of both patents, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief from such infringement, treble damages with...