Meadwestvaco Corp. v. Rexam Plc
809 F. Supp. 2d 463
E.D. Va.2011Background
- MWV sues Valois and Rexam for infringement of the '132' and '819' invisible dip-tube patents related to fragrance packaging.
- The Court reviews motions for partial summary judgment on anticipation, obviousness, inequitable conduct, and validity/infringement issues.
- The patents claim a tube consisting essentially of an extruded and quenched crystalline fluoropolymer with XRD crystallinity not greater than ~13%.
- The dispute centers on crystalline content versus quenching as the critical features, and on whether prior art discloses these features in a single reference.
- Valois and Rexam contend the claims are anticipated/invalid or noninfringed; MWV argues multiple references do not teach the claimed combination and that inequitable conduct and willful infringement remain triable.
- The court ultimately grants in part and denies in part MWV’s motions, and denies Valois’ and Rexam’s key invalidity and infringement requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anticipation of claim 15 | MWV: no single prior art discloses all elements of claim 15. | Valois/Rexam: combination of references anticipates the claim. | Anticipation defeated; no single reference discloses all elements. |
| Obviousness of the patents | MWV: prior art does not render the invention obvious; EFEP use and commercial success show nonobviousness. | Defendants: known elements in prior art render the invention obvious. | Obviousness not proven by clear and convincing evidence; nonobvious. |
| Inequitable conduct | MWV allegedly withheld/misrepresented references. | Defendants contend intentional nondisclosure and misrepresentation to PTO. | Inequitable conduct not proven by clear and convincing evidence. |
| Indefiniteness of XRD crystallinity/crystalline content | Definitions provided and testing parameters adequate; not indefinite. | Indefiniteness due to testing ambiguity. | Not indefinite; terms amenable to construction; stipulation supports definability. |
| Infringement and doctrine of equivalents as to Valois | MWV: Valois infringes the claims; would be direct infringement and possibly through equivalents. | Valois: questions on quenching and US sales; no infringement under literal or equivalents for certain aspects. | Doctrine of equivalents denied for quenched term; direct infringement unresolved on summary judgment; overall infringement issues remain fact-dependent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc., 607 F.3d 784 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (anticipation requires a single reference disclosing all elements)
- Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) (basis for determining obviousness factors)
- KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (Supreme Court 2007) (rejects hindsight-based obviousness; encourages broader assessment)
- Marley Mouldings Ltd. v. Mikron Indus., Inc., 417 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (indefiniteness where calculation method is missing; still not insolubly ambiguous)
- U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (patent validity presumption; burden on challenger to prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence)