Arcelormittal France v. Ak Steel Corp.
700 F.3d 1314
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- ArcelorMittal sued AK Steel in Delaware district court alleging infringement of the '805 patent on a boron steel sheet with an aluminum-based coating used for hot-stamping.
- The district court construed two claim terms: “hot-rolled steel sheet” and “the steel sheet has a very high mechanical resistance,” which narrowed the accused products.
- The jury found no literal infringement, and that the claims were anticipated and obvious; ArcelorMittal appealed the claim construction and verdict.
- The court held that the term “hot-rolled steel sheet” should include steel that is hot-rolled and then cold-rolled to final thickness, contrary to the district court.
- The court affirmed the 1500 MPa threshold for “very high mechanical resistance” as correct, but remanded to assess literal infringement and potential new trial issues.
- Anticipation was found invalid because the prior art (Bano) does not expressly disclose aluminum coating pre- or pre-coated before thermal treatment, so anticipation cannot stand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper construction of 'hot-rolled steel sheet' | ArcelorMittal argues hot-rolled can be followed by cold-rolling. | AK Steel asserts the ordinary meaning excludes post-hot-rolling cold-rolling. | Correct construction includes cold-rolled final thickness. |
| "Very high mechanical resistance" meaning | Very high means greater than 1500 MPa. | Very high may be at least 1500 MPa, aligning with district court. | Affirmed district court: 1500 MPa or greater. |
| Anticipation by Bano | Bano discloses pre-coating or aluminum coating implicitly. | Bano discloses coating after degreasing and paints, implying pre-coating implicitly. | Not supported; anticipation reversed; Bano does not inherently disclose aluminum coating pre-coating. |
| Obviousness and commercial success nexus | Jury could consider commercial success with the correct claim construction. | Commercial success not needed if obvious subject matter covers the claims. | Remand for new trial limited to commercial success under correct construction; not yet resolved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (comprising language presumes additional unrecited elements)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (specification is primary guide to claim interpretation)
- Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (intrinsic evidence governs claim interpretation)
- In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676 (C.C.P.A. 1962) (definite and limited class may imply inherent disclosure)
- Kao, In re, 639 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ( nexus and commercial success considerations in obviousness)
- In re Glatt Air Techniques, Inc., 630 F.3d 1026 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (nexus analysis in commercial success for obviousness)
- Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (analogous art and factual questions in obviousness)
- Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am., Inc., 98 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (establishes nexus considerations for commercial success)