ArcelorMittal France v. AK Steel Corp.
755 F. Supp. 2d 542
D. Del.2010Background
- Plaintiffs ArcelorMittal France and ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine filed suit in January 2010 alleging infringement of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,296,805 by AK Steel Corp., Severstal Dearborn, Inc., and Wheeling-Nisshin, Inc.
- The court expedited trial schedule and limited claim-construction briefing to two disputed terms relevant to infringement.
- The '805 patent relates to a boron-containing steel sheet coated with aluminum prior to forming, with hot-stamping enabling very high post-thermal-treatment strength.
- The court identified two disputed claim limitations: (1) “hot-rolled steel sheet coated with an aluminum or aluminum alloy coating” and (2) “the steel sheet has a very high mechanical resistance after thermal treatment.”
- Plaintiffs contend “comprising” broadens the scope beyond a hot-rolled requirement to include hot-rolled followed by cold-rolling or other transformations.
- Defendants contend the hot-rolled limitation remains a product-by-process constraint and requires actual high strength after thermal treatment; construction should not render the hot-rolled limitation superfluous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| How to construe "hot-rolled steel sheet" | ArcelorMittal argues broader coverage. | Defendants contend only hot-rolled, coated sheets are covered. | Resolved in favor of defendants; hot-rolled limitation remains governing and not broadened by comprising. |
| What constitutes "the steel sheet has a very high mechanical resistance" | A very high resistance is the capability to reach >1000 MPa after heat treatment. | Requires actual post-thermal-treatment tensile strength of 1500 MPa or greater. | Construed to mean actual tensile strength 1500 MPa or greater after specific post-rolling treatment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim construction follows ordinary meaning with context of entire patent)
- Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (comprising conveys openness unless restricted by context)
- Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (‘comprising’ opens but does not remove limitations)
- Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (comprising and claim scope principles in context of patent)
- Jeneric/Pentron, Inc. v. Dillon Co., Inc., 205 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (rejection of expansive interpretation that vitiates explicit limitations)