Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chemical Co.
642 F.3d 1355
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- PET resin patents claim slow-crystallizing PET for hot-fill bottles; TCH, absorbance, and luminosity define claimed resins.
- Ti818 is Wellman’s purported best-mode PET resin; its exact formula not disclosed in the patents.
- Best-mode and related disclosures hinge on inventor subjective beliefs about Ti818 and carbon black N990 as HUR additive.
- District court granted partial invalidity for best mode and indefiniteness; it found Ti818 details and N990 secrecy undermine best mode, and DSC parameters too indefinite.
- The Federal Circuit reverses some indefiniteness findings but affirms best-mode invalidity and remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
- The court addresses claim construction of TCH measurement on amorphous PET and standard moisture conditioning under ISO guidance to resolve indefiniteness on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best mode: whether TI818 and N990 were concealed. | Wellman-contends Ti818 and N990 were best modes disclosed. | Eastman contends best modes not adequately disclosed. | Best-mode invalidity affirmed for multiple claims. |
| Indefiniteness: whether TCH and DSC testing parameters render claims indefinite. | Wellman argues proper DSC guidance and amorphous testing. | Eastman argues moisture and testing history render ambiguity. | Not indefinite; TCH construed to amorphous PET with standard conditioning on remand. |
| Claim construction: whether court should construe TCH term prior to best mode analysis. | Constitution of claim terms unnecessary before best mode. | Constraining terms aids best-mode evaluation. | No prior construction needed for disputed terms in this context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Green Edge Enters., LLC v. Rubber Mulch Etc., LLC, 620 F.3d 1287 (Fed.Cir. 2010) (two-step best mode analysis; subjective belief and concealment)
- Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344 (Fed.Cir. 1998) (best mode requires disclosure of contemplated best mode)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.Cir. 2005) (claims read in view of the specification; intrinsic guidance is dispositive)
- Koito Mfg. Co. v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC, 381 F.3d 1142 (Fed.Cir. 2004) (threshold step: define invention by constraining claims)
- Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. ITC, 341 F.3d 1332 (Fed.Cir. 2003) (DSC testing guidance not dispositive when industry standards apply)