CONTOUR HARDENING, INC. v. VANAIR MANUFACTURING, INC.
1:14-cv-00026
S.D. Ind.Sep 2, 2015Background
- Contour Hardening, Inc. owns the ‘303 patent, issued June 6, 2006, for a vehicle-mounted AC generator system.
- Contour filed patent-infringement and Vanair Manufacturing, Inc. counterclaims in January 2014; Vanair allegedly infringed circa 2007.
- The court held a Markman hearing on August 25, 2015 to address disputed claim terms.
- Two disputed claim terms remained after briefing and hearing, requiring formal construction by the court.
- The court applied claim construction standards, including means-plus-function analysis where applicable.
- The court ultimately issued constructions for the disputed terms and terminated the Markman proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mechanical power input connection means | Contour: PTO unit output; related to PTO 50. | Vanair: AC generator input shaft. | AC generator input shaft (means-plus-function) |
| Relay device receiving inputs from ECM and TCM (claim 10) | Contour: receives from each of ECM and TCM. | Vanair: receives from both ECM and TCM; function as apparatus claim. | Receiving inputs from each of ECM and TCM for enabling operation |
Key Cases Cited
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (U.S. 1996) (claims define invention; heavy presumption of ordinary meaning of claim terms)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim terms take ordinary meaning in context of specification)
- Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relevance of specification and prosecution history to claim scope)
- AventisPharm, Inc. v. Amino Chemicals Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (heavy presumption of ordinary meaning; claim construction framework)
- Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (intrinsic evidence central to claim construction)
- O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (means-plus-function analysis requires corresponding structure in specification)
- IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claims that improperly claim both apparatus and method render indefiniteness)
- H-W Tech., L.C. v. Overstock.com, Inc., 758 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (language referencing user within apparatus claim may indicate improper method step)
- Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc., 520 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (functional language does not automatically render apparatus claim indefinite)
- Rembrandt Data Technologies, LP v. AOL, LLC, 641 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (transmission-related claim language lacking improper method step distinction)
- Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (apparatus claim interpretation principles)