Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Company
811 F.3d 1334
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- Akzo owns the ’956 patent directed to an extrusion process for low-viscosity aqueous polymer dispersions.
- The specification teaches maintaining extruder pressure above atmospheric to prevent boiling by using a pressurized collection vessel.
- Claim 1 recites a process with elevated temperatures and a pressurized outlet/collection arrangement designed to keep the aqueous medium from boiling and to produce a viscosity below 10 Pa·s.
- Dow’s accused BLUEWAVE™ process uses a valve and piping with downstream heat exchangers and an unpressurized collection tote, allegedly lacking a pressurized collection vessel.
- The district court construed “pressurized collection vessel” to require accumulation of material, and held viscosity and elevated-temperature limitations definite; it then granted summary judgment of no infringement and upheld non-indefiniteness.
- Akzo appealed and Dow cross-appealed; the Federal Circuit affirmed both appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| How should 'pressurized collection vessel' be construed? | Akzo argues it should mean 'gather or receive' without requiring accumulation. | Dow argues it requires accumulation as supported by the claim language and specification. | Affirmed: construction requires accumulation (collection with buildup) in context. |
| Whether Akzo proves literal infringement given the court’s construction? | Akzo contends Dow’s process accumulates and thus infringes. | Dow argues there is no accumulation; dispersion flows continuously. | Affirmed: no reasonable jury could find literal infringement under the construed term. |
| Whether Akzo proves infringement under the doctrine of equivalents? | Akzo contends Dow’s valve and piping perform the same function in substantially the same way. | Dow argues Mount’s declaration is vague and fails to show substantial sameness. | Affirmed: no genuine issue of material fact; no substantial equivalence. |
| Does the term 'viscosity below 10 Pa.s' render claims indefinite? | Akzo argues the intrinsic record supports a reasonable certainty how to measure viscosity. | Dow relies on extrinsic evidence suggesting room temperature, but fails to show otherwise. | Affirmed: interpreted as viscosity below 10 Pa.s at room temperature; not indefinite. |
| Does 'carried out ... of the polymer' render claims 2–6 indefinite? | Akzo contends the elevated-temperature limitation should apply to all steps. | Dow argues the elevated-temperature range applies to the elevated-temperature phases according to the specification. | Affirmed: limitation applies to elevated-temperature phases; claims not indefinite. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim construction; claims read in light of the specification)
- Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (extrinsic vs. intrinsic evidence; standard for factual findings in claim construction)
- Power Mosfet Techs., L.L.C. v. Siemens AG, 378 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (avoidance of superfluous claim language; construction principles)
- Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Med. Grp., Inc., 554 F.3d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (contextual interpretation of claim terms; accumulation concepts)
- Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (Supreme Court 1997) (tests for equivalence; function-way-result analysis)
- Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 841 (Supreme Court 2015) (deference to intrinsic record; standard for indefiniteness and claim interpretation)
- Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. _ (Supreme Court 2014) (indefiniteness standard: reasonable certainty)