685 F.3d 1034
Fed. Cir.2012Background
- GE appeals ITC Final Determination that Mitsubishi variable speed wind turbines do not violate §337; patents at issue are GE’s ’221, ’039, and ’985.
- ALJ found ’221 not invalid for obviousness, ’039 not invalid or not infringed, and ’985 not invalid for obviousness or best mode; domestic industry findings varied by patent.
- ITC reviewed only importation and inequitable-conduct findings; final result: ’039 moot due to expiration; court affirmed noninfringement of ’221 and remanded on ’985 domestic industry issue.
- '221’ claims focus on a crowbar circuit recoupling after current drops to a predetermined value; Commission construed “predetermined value” as current or proxy for current.
- ’985 patent covers ride-through circuitry using crowbar circuit and converter controller; court reversed the ITC on the domestic industry finding for ’985 and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Infringement scope of ’221: meaning of ‘predetermined value’ | GE argues it includes time constant as a proxy. | Mitsubishi argues time is not a proxy for current. | Claim construction affirmed that predetermined value is current or proxy; no time-based recoupling. |
| Domestic industry for ’985 patent | GE asserts domestic industry exists. | ITC found no domestic industry. | Court reverses on proper claim construction; remands as to ’985/domestic industry. |
| Claim construction of ’985 patent 15 regarding shunt circuit location | GE argues “coupled with” does not require external placement. | ITC required external to inverter. | “Coupled with” covers connections regardless of physical separation; inverter-shunt not required to be external. |
| Mootness: ’039 patent status | N/A | N/A | ’039 moot; dismissed as to that patent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Linear Technology Corp. v. International Trade Commission, 566 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (agency construction validated by proxy for current via voltage)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc about claim construction deference and intrinsic evidence)
- NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (interpretation of ‘connected to’ or ‘coupled to’ in context)
- Osram GmbH v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 505 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (reversal of no domestic industry on redefined claim scope)
- Voda v. Cordis Corp., 536 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (equivalence test for function/way/result)