Leading Technology Composites, Inc. v. MV2, LLC, 1:19-cv-01256

Leading Technology Composites, Inc. (LTC) sued MV2, LLC alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,551,598 relating to armoring panels designed to resist edge impact penetrations by ballistic projectiles.
MV2 also manufactures armoring panels and sold allegedly infringing panels to both private companies and as part of government contracts (although sales for government contracts were found immune under 28 U.S.C. § 1498).
The ‘598 patent underwent reexamination by the USPTO, resulting in cancellation of claims 1–6 and the survival (as amended) of claim 7, which became the focus of the litigation.
The primary dispute became whether MV2’s panels infringed amended claim 7 by satisfying the "resisting edge impact penetrations" limitation, as properly construed in light of the preamble.
Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, disputed the scope of the preamble as a claim limitation, and challenged each other's experts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether “resisting edge impact penetrations” in the preamble is a claim limitation	Only structural aspects of the preamble are limiting; the “resisting” phrase is merely a statement of purpose	The entire preamble is limiting, including "resisting," which must have technical, measurable meaning	The “resisting” phrase is a limiting part of the claims
Construction of “resisting” limitation	Any armor panel provides some resistance; definition should be broad	“Resisting” means preventing complete penetrations, requiring technical proof (e.g., ballistic testing)	“Resisting” means edge resistance comparable to main body’s medial resistance, not mere general resistance
Proof of infringement (whether MV2 panels met the resisting limitation)	MV2 email admissions and expert’s general testimony show infringement	MV2’s panels offer little resistance; no evidence MV2 panels meet claim as construed	LTC failed to provide evidence MV2 panels resist edge impacts as required; no infringement as a matter of law
Willful infringement	Actions were willful	No infringement (so cannot be willful)	No infringement, so no willful infringement

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard—material facts affect the outcome)
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (claim terms should have their ordinary and customary meaning in light of the specification)
Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (when and how preambles can limit claim scope)
Bayer AG v. Elan Pharm. Rsch. Corp., 212 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (literal infringement requires presence of every claim limitation)
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) (claim construction is a question of law for the court)