Erbe Elektromedizin GmbH & ERBE USA v. Canady Technology LLC
629 F.3d 1278
| Fed. Cir. | 2010Background
- ERBE owns the '745 patent directed to argon plasma coagulation; Canady challenges non-laminar low-flow-rate gas concept.
- ERBE and ConMed sue Canady/Canady Tech for infringement of the '745 and '175 patents and for ERBE's '630 color trademark and trade dress; Canady counters with antitrust claims.
- District court construed 'low flow rate' as less than about 1 L/min and flow velocities under 19 km/h, limiting the gas to a non-laminar inert atmosphere.
- District court granted summary judgment of non-infringement, and granted Canady summary judgment on ERBE/ConMed trademark and trade dress; denied other infringing claims; final judgment entered May 9, 2008.
- ERBE and ConMed appealed; Canady cross-appealed the antitrust ruling; Court of Appeals affirmed on all counts.
- Concurrently, Judge Newman filed a partial dissent regarding trademark/trade dress conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction of 'low flow rate' term | ERBE: low flow rate is qualitative, not strictly limited to 1 L/min or 19 km/h. | Canady: term imports quantitative limits from prosecution history and is narrow to <1 L/min and <19 km/h. | Court adopted Canady construction; judgment of non-infringement affirmed. |
| Trademark/trade dress: blue color functional or protectable with secondary meaning | ERBE: blue is nonfunctional and has secondary meaning; conveys source identity. | Canady: color is functional or lacks secondary meaning; has no protectable identity. | Court held color blue functional and lacking secondary meaning; affirmed summary judgment for Canady on trademark/trade dress. |
| Antitrust counterclaims and Noerr-Pennington sham litigation | Canady: ERBE litigation was sham; Noerr-Pennington immunity should not apply to ConMed/ERBE claims. | ERBE: no sham; probable cause and non-frivolous arguments supported suit. | Court affirmed district court's grant of summary judgment on Canady's antitrust counterclaims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim construction framework and intrinsic evidence)
- Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (uses specification and prosecution history in construction)
- Mindful Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (claim construction and functionality considerations)
- Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159 (S. Ct. 1995) (color marks functionality and secondary meaning framework)
- Keene Corp. v. Paraflex Indus., Inc., 653 F.2d 822 (3d Cir. 1981) (functionality and competitive impact considerations)
- E.T. Browne Drug Co. v. Cococare Prods., Inc., 538 F.3d 185 (3d Cir. 2008) (secondary meaning factors in trademark law)
- Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc., 141 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (PRE sham litigation standard for Noerr-Pennington)
- Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (S. Ct. 1993) (sham litigation doctrine and Noerr-Pennington)