Suprema, Inc. v. International Trade Commission
742 F.3d 1350
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Cross Match sued Suprema and Mentalix at the ITC under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i), asserting infringement of three patents: method patents '344 and '562 and apparatus patent '993.
- Suprema imports RealScan fingerprint scanners; Mentalix imports Suprema scanners and supplies Fed-Submit software that integrates with the scanners.
- The Commission found: Mentalix directly infringed claim 19 of the '344 patent when using Suprema scanners with its software; Suprema induced that infringement; certain Suprema scanners infringed claims 10, 12, and 15 of the '993 patent; no infringement of the '562 patent.
- The ITC issued a limited exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order based on those findings; Suprema and Mentalix appealed the '344 and '993 rulings; Cross Match appealed the '562 noninfringement ruling.
- The Federal Circuit vacated the '344-based relief because an ITC exclusion premised on induced infringement cannot target articles that are not themselves infringing at importation; it affirmed the '993 infringement and non-obviousness findings; it affirmed noninfringement of the '562 patent based on claim construction of “capture.”
Issues
| Issue | Cross Match (Plaintiff) Argument | Suprema/Mentalix (Defendants) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ITC may base a §337 exclusion on induced infringement when direct infringement occurs only after importation | §337 reaches indirect (induced) infringement; Commission may exclude articles tied to such inducement | §337 only reaches "articles that infringe" at time of importation; scanners here had substantial noninfringing uses so were not infringing when imported | ITC cannot predicate §337 exclusion on induced infringement where direct infringement occurs post-importation; vacated '344-based relief and cease-and-desist order |
| Whether Mentalix directly infringed claim 19 of the '344 patent and whether Suprema induced infringement | Cross Match: Mentalix’s use of Suprema scanners with Fed-Submit practices claim 19; Suprema induced that use | Suprema: scanners alone do not infringe; substantial noninfringing uses; challenge to inducement/willful blindness | Court did not reach merits of direct infringement or inducement because jurisdictional limitation; those issues belong in district court |
| Whether Suprema’s scanners infringe claims 10, 12, 15 of the '993 patent and whether those claims are obvious | Cross Match: scanners meet claimed optical-system limitations; patent not obvious over prior art | Suprema: claims exclude non-lens elements/off-axis optics; mirrors in scanners avoid infringement; combination of prior art makes claims obvious | Affirmed infringement of claims 10, 12, 15; ALJ/Commission claim construction permitting non-lens elements supported; obviousness defense rejected for lack of motivation/teaching to combine |
| Proper construction of “capture” in the '562 patent and whether accused products infringe | Cross Match: “capture” need not require scanner to perform all preceding quality/print-detection steps before acquiring image; scanner involvement suffices | Suprema: capture means “acquiring, by the scanner, for processing or storage,” so quality/print detection must precede scanner capture; accused products transfer image to computer before those checks | Affirmed ALJ/Commission: adopted Cross Match’s earlier-proposed construction (“acquiring, by the scanner, for processing or storage”); accused products do not perform (d)/(e) before scanner capture, so no infringement |
Key Cases Cited
- Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir.) (addressed ITC induced-infringement findings and remanded for intent analysis)
- DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir.) (en banc) (defines inducement: requires culpable conduct encouraging another’s infringement)
- Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir.) (en banc) (inducement extends liability to parties who advise or encourage infringement)
- Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir.) (method-claim step ordering may be required by claim language/logic)
- Tessera Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 646 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir.) (appellate waiver/invited-error principles when a party challenges its own proposed claim construction)
- Young Eng’rs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 721 F.2d 1305 (Fed. Cir.) (affirmed ITC exclusion based on contributory and induced infringement)