Meadwestvaco Corp. v. Rexam Plc
807 F. Supp. 2d 537
E.D. Va.2011Background
- MWV and related entities sue Valois and Rexam for infringement of the '132' and '819' patents relating to an invisible dip tube in fragrance bottles.
- The case focuses on a component that disappears when immersed in liquid, i.e., the invisible dip tube.
- The patents claim a dispenser assembly with a transport assembly and a dip tube made of a quenched, crystalline fluoropolymer with low crystallinity and a specific refractive index.
- Four independent claims are at issue: claims 1, 9, and 15 of the '132 patent and claim 1 of the '819 patent.
- The court conducts claim construction to determine the ordinary meaning of seven disputed terms essential to the scope of the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quenched meaning rapidly cooled | MWV: quenched = rapidly cooled | Valois: quenched limited to immersion in a cooling liquid | Quenched means rapidly cooled |
| Transparency meaning visible-light transmission | MWV: transparency = allowing visible light through | Rexam: requires specific transmission measurement | Transparency = allowing visible light through so objects can be seen |
| Dispenser assembly meaning structure including transport and dip tube | MWV: includes at least a transport assembly and a dip tube | Rexam: broader 'structure for dispensing' including spray | Dispenser assembly = an assembly that includes at least a transport assembly and a dip tube |
| Modified ethylene tetrafluoroethylene meaning altered fluoropolymer | MWV: plain meaning of 'modified' as altered | Rexam: includes a copolymer with a third monomer | Modified ethylene tetrafluoroethylene = an ETFE fluoropolymer that has been altered to change one or more properties |
| About; crystalline content and XRD crystallinity meaning | MWV: about = approximately; crystalline terms defined by patent parameters | Rexam: seeks narrower numerical boundaries | About = approximately; crystalline content and XRD crystallinity defined by specified XRD parameters in the patent |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (claim construction requires clarifying what patentee covered)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claims interpreted with ordinary meaning and intrinsic record)
- Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (dictionary definitions permissible if consistent with patent)
- CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (claims read in view of specification and prosecution history)
- Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (dictionary definitions; intrinsic record interplay)
- V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Grp., 401 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (prosecution history as part of intrinsic record)