Nartron Corp. v. Borg Indak, Inc.
848 F. Supp. 2d 725
E.D. Mich.2012Background
- Nartron sues Schukra and Therm-O-Disc for infringement of the '748 patent relating to massage control modules (MCMs) for seat massage systems.
- The court previously held Benson a co-inventor for claim 11; the Federal Circuit reversed, remanding for full analysis of other claims.
- Plaintiff asserts memory and non-memory MCMs with a 'transparency simulator' that keeps seat control function while adding massage capability.
- Defendants manufactured and sold MCMs in the United States during the patent term; dispute centers on inventorship, infringement, and shop-right/license defenses.
- The court conducts claim construction, analyzes co-inventorship, and then addresses direct/contributory infringement, and equitable defenses.
- The court grants Plaintiff partial summary judgment on several counts, denies others, and schedules a final pre-trial conference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Benson a co-inventor of the '748 patent for claims beyond claim 11? | Benson contributed to the extender and overall invention; he is a co-inventor. | Benson’s contributions were not enough to constitute co-inventorship under Ethicon/Hess and Nartron precedent. | Benson not a co-inventor; co-inventorship denied. |
| Does Defendant directly or contributorily infringe claims 1 and 7 of the '748 patent? | Defendant’s memory MCM infringes claim 1; non-memory MCM infringes claim 7 via the transparency simulator. | MCMs lack essential transparency-simulator feature or non-infringe in non-memory embodiments. | Both memory and non-memory MCMs infringe; infringement established. |
| Are the shop-right and license counterclaims valid against Plaintiff? | No shop-right or implied license to Schukra/Defendant; contract excludes employer rights; no license implied. | Schukra’s shop-right or implied licenses exist by joint development or contract. | Shop right denied; no implied license; license counterclaim dismissed. |
| Are the patent-invalidity defenses (101, 102, 103, 112, 115/116, 256, inequitable conduct) viable? | Patented invention fulfills utility, novelty, non-obviousness; validity presumed. | Various invalidity grounds and inequitable conduct could render the patent invalid or unenforceable. | Invalidity defenses rejected; patent presumed valid; no inequitable conduct proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456 (Fed.Cir.1998) (inventorship presumption; clear and convincing standard to overcome)
- Hess v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 106 F.3d 976 (Fed.Cir.1997) (co-inventor burden and state-of-the-art disclosure)
- Nartron Corp. v. Schukra U.S.A., Inc., 558 F.3d 1352 (Fed.Cir.2009) (remand to address remaining Benson contributions)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.Cir.2005) (claim construction methodology; intrinsic/extrinsic evidence)
- Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed.Cir.1996) (sources for proper claim interpretation; prosecution history useful)
- SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107 (Fed.Cir.1985) (claim construction; read terms in light of specification)
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (Supreme Court 1996) (claim construction as a matter of law following two-step analysis)
- Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 131 S. Ct. 223 (Supreme Court 2011) (invalidity defenses require clear and convincing evidence)
- Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293 (Fed.Cir.2005) (preconditions for direct infringement and equivalence analysis)
- A.C. Aukerman Co. v. Chaides Const. Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed.Cir.1992) (equitable defenses (laches, estoppel) in patent actions)
- Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed.Cir.1996) (claim construction framework and use of intrinsic/extrinsic evidence)