WESTMORELAND ADVANCED MATERIALS, INC. v. ALLIED MINERAL PRODUCTS, INC.
2:16-cv-00263
W.D. Pa.Jun 13, 2016Background
- Westmoreland Advanced Materials sued Allied Mineral Products for infringement of U.S. Patents 7,824,464 and 8,123,853, alleging Allied developed and sold SENTIN-AL M/H products that are similar to Westmoreland's AL II/AL II HD products.
- Prior communications: Westmoreland warned Allied during business discussions that Allied should not base new products on Westmoreland's technology; Allied was aware of the patents.
- Nemak and other aluminum manufacturers were alleged customers who either specified Westmoreland product but installed SENTIN-AL products or otherwise purchased Allied's SENTIN-AL products in place of Westmoreland's products.
- Westmoreland alleges SENTIN-AL products are used specifically as furnace/processing equipment liners for aluminum manufacturing and lack substantial noninfringing uses.
- Allied moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state claims of direct, induced, and contributory infringement; the court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct infringement by third parties of the '853 patent | Allegations show SENTIN-AL used to line loaders, holding furnaces, die-casting furnaces — i.e., processing equipment | Insufficient pleading: no allegation that third parties used SENTIN-AL to line a rotary kiln or the specific equipment recited in claim 1 | Court: allegations construed favorably are adequate to plead third-party direct infringement of the '853 patent |
| Induced infringement of the '464 and '853 patents | Allied knew of the patents, was warned, marketed SENTIN-AL for lining aluminum processing equipment — showing intent to induce infringement | Plaintiff fails to plead Allied knew acts would constitute infringement or specifically intended to induce infringement | Court: factual allegations permit inference Allied knew of patents and intended purchasers to use products in an infringing manner; induced infringement pled adequately |
| Contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(c) | SENTIN-AL products are not staple articles and have no substantial noninfringing use; Allied knew products were adapted for infringing use | Brochure suggests SENTIN-AL is for aluminum and other light-metal contact applications — could show substantial noninfringing uses | Court: at pleading stage, allegations that SENTIN-AL is used only for infringing aluminum-lining uses suffice to state contributory infringement; analysis of substantial noninfringing uses is premature |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must show more than possibility; reasonable expectation of discovery)
- Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. Dist., 706 F.3d 209 (Third Circuit three-step pleading analysis)
- Covington v. Int'l Ass'n of Approved Basketball Officials, 710 F.3d 114 (context-specific plausibility review)
- Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121 (Third Circuit pleading standards)
- Kanter v. Barella, 489 F.3d 170 (view allegations in light most favorable to plaintiff)
- Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d 347 (inferences vs. conclusory allegations)
- Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc., 581 F.3d 1317 (what constitutes a substantial noninfringing use)
- In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323 (contributory infringement pleading requirements)
- Reuben v. U.S. Airways, Inc., [citation="500 F. App'x 103"] (court need not accept unsupported conclusions)