Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Systems, Inc.
853 F.3d 1272
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Patent at issue: expired U.S. Patent No. 5,602,524 covering vehicle tire-pressure monitoring systems; claim 1 is sole independent claim; 21 claims total.
- Two consolidated IPRs: IPR2014-00295 (Continental) and IPR2014-00476 (Schrader). The PTAB found many claims unpatentable over Italian reference Oselin and combinations with other patents; certain dependent claims (6–9, 20) were held patentable by the Board.
- Wasica (patentee) appealed Board rulings that claims 1–5, 10–19, and 21 are unpatentable; Continental and Schrader cross‑appealed the Board’s rulings that some dependent claims are patentable.
- Key factual dispute areas: (a) whether claimed "electrical pressure signal" and "pressure transmitting signal" require numeric/quantitative pressure values; (b) whether "emittance" requires wireless transmission; (c) whether Oselin discloses constant‑frequency carrier waves (claim 6); (d) scope of "bit sequence" in claim 9 (single‑bit vs multi‑bit).
- Court outcome: affirmed PTAB that claims 1–5, 10–19, and 21 are unpatentable; affirmed PTAB that claims 6–8 and 20 are patentable; reversed PTAB as to claim 9 (held unpatentable). Costs borne by parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wasica) | Defendant's Argument (Continental/Schrader) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "electrical pressure signal" and "pressure transmitting signal" require numeric pressure values | Terms require numeric/quantitative representation; Oselin’s single alarm bit is non‑numeric and thus not anticipatory | Claims are broad; "representative" and spec permit non‑numeric symbols/switch‑based signals like Oselin | The court agreed with Board: terms encompass non‑numeric signals; affirmed unpatentability of claims 1–5, 10–16, 18, 19, 21 |
| Whether "emittance" in claim 17 is limited to wireless transmission | "Emit" implies wireless only; wired switching signal does not meet claim | "Emit"/"send out" is plain meaning and includes wired transmissions; spec shows wired and wireless examples | The court held "emittance" includes wired and wireless; affirmed Board’s unpatentability finding for claim 17 |
| Whether Oselin anticipates / renders obvious claim 6 (carrier waves of constant frequency) | Oselin’s "common" working frequency does not disclose constant, unchanging frequency; petitioners failed to prove otherwise | Oselin discloses common working frequency or any modulation scheme; constant frequency is within disclosed options | Substantial evidence supports Board: Oselin ambiguous re constant frequency; Board reasonably credited patentee expert and petition deficiencies; affirmed patentability of claim 6 (and thus 7, 8, 20) |
| Proper construction of "bit sequence" in claim 9 (single‑bit sequences allowed?) | "Sequence" implies two or more bits, so Oselin’s single alarm bit does not anticipate claim 9 | "Bit sequence" may include single‑bit sequences; claim 9 requires at least four bits comprised of four component sequences (each may be one bit) | Court reversed Board: context of claim 9 requires component "bit sequence" to permit single‑bit sequences; claim 9 is anticipated by Oselin and therefore unpatentable |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.) (claim construction uses intrinsic record and ordinary meaning)
- Teva Pharm. U.S.A., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) (claim construction: legal question with subsidiary factual findings reviewed accordingly)
- Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir.) (standards of review in IPR appeals)
- Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir.) (do not interpret claim to exclude disclosed examples)
- Illumina Cambridge Ltd. v. ??? (see Illumina case), 821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir.) (importance of developing grounds in initial IPR petition)
- Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp., 488 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir.) ("signals representative of" not confined to numerical values)
- Gemtron Corp. v. Saint‑Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir.) (attorney argument is not evidence)
- 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir.) (patentee entitled to plain and ordinary meaning absent clear disavowal)