Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc. v. Actsoft, Inc.
414 F. App'x 294
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- AMS appeals a district court grant of summary judgment of no infringement against Actsoft, Ohio House, and U.S. Home under the ’919 patent.
- The district court construed claim step (c) as requiring calculation of a BAC, and step (e) as transmitting each individual indication and measurement separately.
- HAS measures voltage from a transdermal sensor but does not calculate a TAC or BAC, instead producing a proprietary averaged voltage value (fValc).
- The ’919 patent claims a method for monitoring the percentage of blood alcohol content; SCRAM is AMS’s embodiment that computes TAC approximating BAC.
- AMS asserted infringement in 2007–2008; the district court granted noninfringement in 2009, finding no literal infringement and no DOE infringement.
- The Federal Circuit affirms the grant of summary judgment of no literal infringement but reverses on infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does step (c) require calculation of BAC? | AMS: preamble not limiting; step (c) requires TAC, not literal BAC calculation. | Defendants: district court correctly required BAC calculation in step (c). | Step (c) requires measuring emitted alcohol and calculating a TAC (approximate BAC). |
| What is the proper construction of step (e) requiring transmission? | AMS: focus on measurement results, not just measurements; avoid conflating measurement with results. | Defendants: plain meaning of each requires separately identifiable transmissions of each indication and measurement. | Step (e) requires transmitting each measurement result separately identifiable. |
| Does HAS literally infringe claim 14? | HAS’s voltage readings plus potential equivalence to TAC could literal-infringe if equivalent. | HAS does not calculate TAC or BAC, thus no literal infringement under properly construed step (c). | HAS does not literally infringe claim 14. |
| Does the doctrine of equivalents support infringement by the HAS device? | Voltage measurements could be substantially the same as TAC calculation under a broad DOE view. | Voltage alone is not the same as TAC calculation; no obvious DOE. | DOE infringement could be found; district court reversed on this issue; remand for DOE evaluation. |
Key Cases Cited
- IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (claim construction and two-step infringement framework; preamble considerations)
- Acumed L.L.C. v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (claim construction and infringement analysis framework)
- Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd. v. Ambu A/S, 618 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing claim construction de novo)
- Immunocept, L.L.C. v. Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., 504 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (summary judgment and claim construction standards)
- Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Rexam Beverage Can Co., 559 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (doctrine of equivalents; function/way/result framework)
- Mas-Hamilton Grp. v. La-Gard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (literal infringement standard; limitation-by-limitation)