2013 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS 19
Ct. Int'l Trade2013Background
- ITC General Exclusion Order 650 GEO bars unlicensed entry of coaxial cable connectors infringing claims 1 or 2 of the ’194 patent.
- Corning Gilbert protested exclusion and sought further review; HQ Ruling upheld exclusion of Excluded Connectors.
- Excluded Connectors share common structure with typical coaxial connectors and include a deformable gripping ring; only ring deforms in operation.
- ITC Fei Yu FY-037 device (a different product) was found to infringe the ’194 patent, but Corning Gilbert was not a party to that ITC proceeding.
- Court conducts de novo claim construction and traditional infringement analysis; ITC findings against Fei Yu do not bind this case.
- Court concludes Excluded Connectors do not infringe claims 1 or 2 and are outside the 650 GEO; Customs must admit connectors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deference to HQ Ruling warranted? | Mead shows deference not warranted here | HQ Ruling is thorough and persuasive; deference proper | No deference to HQ Ruling |
| Construction of 'cylindrical body member' | Term means generally cylindrical portion surrounding the post | Term lacks 'outer' and should be broader | Construed as generally cylindrical portion surrounding the post to define a bore |
| Do Excluded Connectors infringe claims 1/2? | Exclude because no deformable sleeve at end of body | Deformable sleeve present when ring is part of body | Exclude Connectors do not infringe claims 1 or 2 |
| Effect of ITC Fei Yu finding | Fei Yu finding controls exclusion scope | Fei Yu finding not binding for Corning Gilbert’s product | Fei Yu finding does not bind infringement outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Tessera, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 646 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (two-step infringement analysis; claim construction required)
- Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex Corp., 970 F.2d 834 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (proper infringement analysis compares accused device to claims)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (S. Ct. 2001) (agency decisions may warrant deference when thorough and persuasive)
- Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (Sup. Ct. 1962) (agencies must engage in reasoned decision-making)