Wah Hung International Machinery Inc v. Valley Custom Tire Inc
2:11-cv-04178
| C.D. Cal. | Jan 17, 2013Background
- Wah Hung, Velocity Wheel, Tyfun, and Zhao allege design patents for front-face vehicle wheel designs (D617,720; D620,425; D620,867; D639,220).
- Each patent contains a single claimed design and two figures; broken lines indicate non-parts.
- Patents pertain to metal rims manufactured in China and imported for sale in the U.S.
- Filing dates: ‘720 (Dec 17, 2009); ‘425 (Jan 15, 2010); ‘220 (Dec 11, 2009); ‘867 (Jan 15, 2010).
- Licensing: Wah Hung Velocity licenses the ‘720 and ‘220; Tyfun licenses the ‘425 and ‘867.
- Products embodying the patents included U2-35S wheel (for ‘720), Bentchi B15 wheel (for ‘425), and Bentchi B3S wheel (for ‘867); these wheels were sold in 2007–2009, prior to the critical dates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity under on-sale bar (35 U.S.C. § 102(b)). | Zhao/ Plaintiffs contend no pre-date sale of claimed designs. | Wholesale Wheel shows pre-date sales of the accused wheels (U2-35S; Bentchi B15). | The patents are invalid due to on-sale prior to the critical date. |
| Anticipation by prior art for the ‘867 and ‘220 patents. | Anticipation not shown by prior art. | Bentchi B3S and U2-55B anticipate the ‘867 and ‘220 designs. | ‘867 and ‘220 invalid for anticipation. |
| Standards for establishing a case as exceptional under §285. | Case may be exceptional due to conduct; demand for fees. | No misconduct or objective baselessness proven. | Wholesale Wheel fails to prove exceptional case; no fees awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Linear Tech. Corp. v. Micrel, Inc., 275 F.3d 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (clear and convincing on-sale standard)
- AstraZeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc., 633 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (anticipation burden and standard)
- Door-Master Corp. v. Yorktowne, Inc., 256 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim construction precedes prior-art comparison)
- Int'l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp., 589 F.3d 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (ordinary observer test for design patent validity/infringement)
- Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc; ordinary-observer standard clarified)
- Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 511 (1871) (early design-patent comparison principle)
- Cambridge Prods. Ltd. v. Penn Nutrients Inc., 962 F.2d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (exceptional-case framework under §285 (predecessor))