Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. v. U.S. Venture, Inc.
1:15-cv-08178
N.D. Ill.Apr 28, 2017Background
- Sunoco owns three patents (‘302, ‘629, ‘671) covering systems/methods to blend butane into gasoline near the end of distribution (at tank farms or in-line) to achieve maximum legal RVP per destination/season.
- Butane blending earlier (refinery/pipeline) forces producers to meet the strictest downstream RVP limit; late-stage blending allows tailoring per truck/region and saves cost.
- Sunoco sued U.S. Venture/U.S. Oil for patent infringement; defendants deny infringement and counterclaim invalidity/unenforceability. Technics was dismissed earlier.
- The parties disputed construction of five claim-term groups: “in fluid connection” / “dispensing the blend”; “blending unit”; “a vapor pressure”; “operable”; and “upstream/downstream.”
- The court applied Phillips/Markman claim-construction principles, focusing on intrinsic record (claims, specification, prosecution history) and rejected importing temporal immediacy into claims based on the specification’s use of “immediately.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “in fluid connection” / “dispensing the blend” | Plain and ordinary meaning; no temporal immediacy | Requires temporal immediacy: fluid must flow immediately/continuously to dispensing | Adopted Sunoco: elements arranged so fluid can flow between them; no temporal immediacy imported; “dispensing the blend” plain meaning |
| Meaning of “blending unit” (’302 & ’629) | Must determine and control blend (i.e., perform calculation/control) | Broad: any unit that blends | Court adopted spec definition: "any conventional apparatus that achieves blending of two or more separate streams into one"; process/control may be external |
| Meaning of “blending unit” (’671) | (disputed) | (disputed) | For ’671, court construed to require a unit capable of receiving calculated blend ratio from an IPU and adjusting actual blend ratio/rate accordingly (per ’671 spec) |
| “A vapor pressure” measurement location | Plain meaning; no construction | Measurement must be taken from the stream after leaving tanks (not earlier) | Plain and ordinary meaning; specification allows sampling upstream but prefers stream sampling; no uniform limitation on exact sampling point |
| “Operable” | Plain/ordinary meaning (capable of performing) | Should mean capable only without need for modifications (exclude devices needing modification) | “Operable” has ordinary meaning; no special restriction; court declines to construe (or would mean “capable of performing the recited function”) |
| “Upstream” / “Downstream” | Plain meaning | Direction-of-flow based definitions | Defined as process-order terms: upstream = portion of process that precedes referenced unit; downstream = portion that succeeds referenced unit |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (primary framework for claim construction; focus on ordinary meaning and intrinsic record)
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (U.S. 1996) (claim construction is a matter of law for the court)
- Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (specification highly relevant to claim construction)
- C.R. Bard, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (specification can import limitations when it consistently characterizes the invention)
- Absolute Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc., 659 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (warning against confining claims to embodiments unless specification consistently limits scope)
- Regents of Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp., 717 F.3d 929 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (specification support required to read limitations into claims)
- Openwave Sys., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 808 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (disparagement of prior art can support disavowal of claim scope but requires a high bar)
- Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (consider whether the very character of the invention requires a limitation)
- Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 717 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (standard for whether an accused device is reasonably capable of satisfying a claim limitation)