Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01932/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01932-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
BorgWarner Morse Tec Inc.
Not party
BorgWarner, Inc.
Not party
Hilite International, Inc.
Appellant
Jean Melchior
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JEAN MELCHIOR,

Plaintiff-Appellee

BORGWARNER, INC.,

BORGWARNER MORSE TEC INC.,

Third Party Defendants

v.

HILITE INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________ 

2015-1932

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Texas in No. 3:11-cv-03094-M, Judge 

Barbara M.G. Lynn.

______________________ 

Decided: December 12, 2016

______________________ 

 STEVEN DOMINIC SANFELIPPO, Cunningham Swaim, 

LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by MICHAEL ROSS CUNNINGHAM, THOMAS C.

WRIGHT. 

Case: 15-1932 Document: 62-2 Page: 1 Filed: 12/12/2016
2 MELCHIOR v. HILITE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

 JOHN DIMATTEO, Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP, 

New York, NY, argued for defendant-appellant. Also 

represented by DANIEL MARTIN SULLIVAN; JOHN C.

EICHMAN, Hunton & Williams LLP, Dallas, TX.

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, and DYK,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge DYK. 

Opinion concurring in the judgment of 

no liability filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN. 

DYK, Circuit Judge. 

Jean Melchior sued Hilite International, Inc. for infringing certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,645,017 (“the 

’017 patent”), 5,649,506 (“the ’506 patent”), and 5,507,254 

(“the ’254 patent”). Following a jury trial and verdict in 

favor of Melchior, the district court denied Hilite’s motion

for judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement and 

invalidity, and ordered judgment for Melchior. Because 

we hold that the district court should have found the 

asserted patent claims invalid, we reverse. 

BACKGROUND

I 

Because we reach only the issue of invalidity, we have 

correspondingly limited our recitation of the facts. In a 

typical internal combustion engine, the explosive forces 

generated by the combustion of fuel in the engine’s cylinders are translated by pistons into the rotation of a crankshaft. The rotation of the crankshaft is linked by a timing 

chain to the rotation of one or more camshafts, which in 

turn controls the opening and closing of the cylinders’

intake and exhaust valves. The opening and closing of the 

valves permits fuel to enter the cylinders and the combustion byproducts to leave. 

Case: 15-1932 Document: 62-2 Page: 2 Filed: 12/12/2016
MELCHIOR v. HILITE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 3

A camshaft controls the opening and closing of the intake and exhaust valves through cams, which are lobular 

protrusions having a particular arrangement along the 

axis of the camshaft. As the camshaft rotates, a cam 

opens a valve by coming into physical contact with the 

valve and pushing it open. As the camshaft rotates the 

cam away, the valve springs back into a closed position as 

the cam loses physical contact. The arrangement of cams 

and the rotation of the camshaft, together, ultimately 

control the precise timing of the valves’ opening and 

closing. 

Well before the filing of the patents-in-suit, it was discovered that engine performance could be optimized if the 

intake or exhaust valves could, at certain times, open or 

close sooner or later than they otherwise would. This 

principle is known as variable valve timing. One way of 

achieving variable valve timing is through the use of cam 

phasers, the technology at the center of this case. A cam 

phaser alters valve timing by rotating the camshaft to be 

out of “phase” with the crankshaft. The “phase” or “phase 

difference” between the camshaft and the crankshaft is 

equivalent to the relative angle between the two. By 

“advancing” the camshaft (or increasing the phase), the 

cam phaser causes the valves to open earlier; by “retarding” the camshaft (or decreasing the phase), the cam 

phaser causes the valves to open later. 

The cam phasers disclosed in the asserted patents are 

hydraulic components that operate by filling and draining 

two coupled hydraulic chambers. By filling one chamber 

with an incompressible hydraulic fluid (e.g., oil) and 

draining the other, the phasers cause the camshaft to 

either advance or retard. By preventing either chamber 

from filling or draining, the phasers cause the camshaft’s

phase to remain constant. These aspects of the cam 

phasers covered by the patents were known in the prior 

art. 

Case: 15-1932 Document: 62-2 Page: 3 Filed: 12/12/2016
4 MELCHIOR v. HILITE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

It was also known in the prior art that a phaser’s hydraulic chambers could be filled using a pump. See, e.g., 

’017 patent, col. 1 ll. 38–40. The claimed innovation 

disclosed in Melchior’s patents is a cam phaser capable of 

filling its chambers without a pump. Instead of a pump, 

Melchior’s phaser takes advantage of a phenomenon

known as a “torque reversal” that generates alternating 

differences in pressure between the chambers.1 The 

asserted claims are drawn to methods and internal combustion engines that use these pressure differentials to 

force fluid out of one chamber and into the other. Claim 

22 of the ’017 patent and claim 5 of the ’254 patent, for 

instance, are drawn to methods that recite “varying the 

position” of the camshaft by “actuating” the hydraulic 

chambers “in reaction to torque reversals.” ’017 patent, 

col. 12 ll. 19–34; ’254 patent, col. 19 l. 52–col. 20 l. 15. 

Claim 7 of the ’506 patent similarly provides for an internal combustion engine having a cam phaser with “flow 

control means . . . operable to be reactive to torque reversals.” See ’506 patent, col. 11 ll. 28–53.

The use of torque reversals is further illustrated by an

embodiment of Melchior’s phaser shown in figure 3 of the 

’017 patent, reproduced below.

 

1 A torque reversal refers to the pair of forces acting 

on the camshaft as a cam comes into contact with a valve. 

As the cam pushes the valve open, it experiences a “pulse” 

caused by resistance from compressing the valve’s return

spring. Then, as the valve closes and the cam moves 

away, the spring’s extension creates another “pulse” in 

the opposite direction.

Case: 15-1932 Document: 62-2 Page: 4 Filed: 12/12/2016
MELCHIOR v. HILITE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 5

As shown in figure 3, chambers 13 and 14 are “interconnected by two unidirectional [hydraulic] communication circuits 18 and 19 of opposite directions owing to the 

presence of check valves 20 and 21.” ’017 patent, col. 3 ll. 

45–50. By appropriately positioning slide 23, one of the

circuits can selectively be opened by being aligned with 

groove 25—as shown in figure 3, circuit 19 is open. ’017 

patent, col. 3 ll. 60–67. Once a circuit is opened, the 

hydraulic fluid in one chamber is able to move down the 

pressure gradient generated by a torque reversal, through 

the circuit, and into the other chamber. ’017 patent, col. 4, 

ll. 23–43. Flow in the opposite direction (back into the 

first chamber) is prevented by the presence of the corresponding check valve. Accordingly, by using Melchior’s 

phaser, it is “possible to vary in operation the phase 

between the [crankshaft] and the [camshaft] without use 

of a power means such as a source of fluid under pressure,” i.e., a pump. ’017 patent, col. 1, ll. 48–49. 

Case: 15-1932 Document: 62-2 Page: 5 Filed: 12/12/2016
6 MELCHIOR v. HILITE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

II

Melchior sued Hilite in the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Texas alleging, inter 

alia, infringement of claims 22–25 of the ’017 patent;

claims 7–10, 12–15, and 18 of the ’506 patent; and claim 5 

of the ’254 patent. Melchior asserted that two of Hilite’s 

phasers, the “Fast Phaser” and the “Fam-B OCV,” infringed the asserted claims because each phaser, despite 

generally using a pump to advance and/or retard the 

camshaft’s phase, was also designed to vary the phase 

without the pump at certain points of the accused phaser’s 

operation using torque reversals.2 J.A. 10. Hilite defended 

by arguing that its phasers did not infringe, and that the 

claims were invalid as, inter alia, anticipated by 

Danckert, a German patent, or rendered obvious by

Danckert in view of Shirai, U.S. Patent No. 4,858,572. 

Danckert was published in 1986, before the priority date 

of Melchior’s patents, and is titled “Device for Load and 

Speed Dependent Adjustment of the Timing of a Gas 

Exchange Valve of an Internal Combustion Engine.” 

Shirai has a U.S. filing date that antedates Melchior’s 

priority date and is titled “Device for Adjusting an Angular Phase Difference Between Two Elements.” 

Melchior and Hilite’s respective claims of infringement and invalidity were heard before a jury in February 

2015. The jury returned a verdict finding that Hilite’s 

phasers infringed the asserted claims and that the claims 

were not invalid. Hilite then filed a renewed motion for 

judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”), which the district 

court denied. This appeal followed. 

 

2 The parties stipulated that “there is no infringement at any moment in time during which the pump is 

supplying oil to the phaser chambers . . . even when 

assisted by” torque reversals. J.A. 5709.

Case: 15-1932 Document: 62-2 Page: 6 Filed: 12/12/2016
MELCHIOR v. HILITE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 7

DISCUSSION

I 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295. We review the district court’s denial of a motion for JMOL de 

novo. See Nobach v. Woodland Village Nursing Center, 

Inc., 799 F.3d 374, 377 (5th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we 

will uphold the jury’s verdict as long as it is supported by 

substantial evidence. See Z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft 

Corp., 507 F.3d 1340, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Lane 

V. R.A. Sims, Jr., Inc., 241 F.3d 439, 445 (5th Cir. 2001)).

II

Anticipation as a defense to infringement requires 

proof by “clear and convincing evidence that a single prior 

art reference discloses each and every element of [the]

claimed invention.” K-TEC, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp., 696 

F.3d 1364, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Hilite maintains that 

this standard is met by Danckert, and that no reasonable 

jury could have concluded otherwise on the trial record.

Hilite has offered claim 22 of the ’017 patent as representative on appeal, and Melchior does not disagree. 

Claim 22 provides:

22. In an internal combustion engine having a 

crankshaft, at least one camshaft, the at least one 

camshaft being position variable relative to the 

crankshaft and being subject to torque reversals, 

the method comprising:

providing oppositely acting first and second hydraulic means for varying the position of the at least one camshaft;

varying the position of the at least one 

camshaft relative to the crankshaft by 

transferring hydraulic fluid from one of 

the first and second hydraulic means to 

Case: 15-1932 Document: 62-2 Page: 7 Filed: 12/12/2016
8 MELCHIOR v. HILITE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

the other of the first and second hydraulic 

means; and 

actuating the first and second hydraulic 

means for varying the position of the at 

least one camshaft relative to the crankshaft in reaction to torque reversals in the 

at least one camshaft.

’017 patent, col. 12 ll. 19–34.

Danckert teaches a “device for load and speed dependent adjustment of the timing of a gas exchange 

valve”—i.e., a cam phaser—for which “no additional 

energy sources are necessary for the adjustment.” J.A. 

15715. Danckert renders these “additional energy 

sources” unnecessary by using “alternative torques generated by the internal combustion during propulsion,” i.e., 

torque reversals, “for the adjustment of the cam mechanism.” Id. Like the other phasers at issue in this case, 

Danckert’s phaser employs two hydraulic chambers; when 

a “control piston is displaced,” one chamber is “opened . . . 

and connected via [] connecting lines to the pressurizing 

medium inlet or outlet, while at the same time . . . the 

[other] chamber” is “seal[ed].” J.A. 15720 (figure reference 

numbers omitted). As a consequence of the “locking” of 

one chamber, the “simultaneous opening” of the other, 

and the “axial forces” acting on Danckert’s phaser, a “set 

piston” between the chambers is adjusted by the “escape” 

of “[p]ressurizing medium” (oil) from the open chamber 

into the connecting lines, while “at the same time,” pressurizing medium from the connecting lines “can be filled” 

into the sealed chamber. Id.

At trial, Melchior’s invalidity expert conceded that 

Danckert satisfied all but one of the recited limitations of 

claim 22. Specifically, he agreed that: (1) “Danckert 

discloses an internal combustion engine having a crankshaft and at least one camshaft”; (2) “the at least one 

camshaft is positioned variable relative to the crankshaft” 

Case: 15-1932 Document: 62-2 Page: 8 Filed: 12/12/2016
MELCHIOR v. HILITE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 9

and “is subject to torque reversals”; (3) “Danckert discloses oppositely acting first and second hydraulic means”; (4) 

“Danckert describes actuating the first and second hydraulic means for varying the position of the camshaft 

relative to the crankshaft”; (5) “[a]nd that [the] actuation 

is done in reaction to torque reversal[s].” J.A. 7596–98. 

The only limitation remaining in claim 22 is “transferring 

hydraulic fluid from one of the first and second hydraulic 

means to the other of the first and second hydraulic 

means.” With respect to this limitation, Melchior’s expert 

agreed that the “only thing [he] dispute[d] . . . with all the 

claims relative to Danckert, [was] whether the transfer of 

fluid is a . . . direct transfer in a closed line.” J.A. 7599.

According to the expert, Danckert failed to satisfy “direct 

transfer in a closed line” because the reference “opened” 

the circuit between the hydraulic chambers to a “central 

cavity which acts as a sump.” Id.; see also J.A. 7581 (“The 

Danckert teachings have two chambers that are not 

directly connected, providing a closed-loop connection 

between the chambers. Instead the two chambers are 

connected to central cavity that is open to the pressure 

source.”).

The problem with distinguishing Danckert on the basis Melchior’s expert asserted is that the claims do not 

require “direct transfer in a closed line.” Neither these

words nor any approximation thereof appears in representative claim 22, a point which the expert readily 

conceded. See J.A. 7599–600 (“Q. . . . Where in the claims 

do you see, quote, direct transfer . . . [c]lose quote. . . . A. I 

don’t see that.”). Melchior also never requested the district court to construe the “transferring” step of claim 22

to require “direct transfer in a closed line.” To the contrary, Melchior requested a much broader construction that 

the district court ultimately adopted.3 See, e.g., Joint 

 

3 See J.A. 4388. In accordance with Melchior’s proposed claim construction, the district court construed the 

Case: 15-1932 Document: 62-2 Page: 9 Filed: 12/12/2016
10 MELCHIOR v. HILITE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement Exhibit B

at 4–5, Melchior v. Hilite Int’l, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-03094-M 

(N.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2012), ECF No. 39-1. Nor did the 

district court adopt any construction that, or instruct the 

jury that, “direct transfer in a closed line” was otherwise a 

required claim limitation.

There is also no support for such a construction in the

patents’ specification. Melchior does not contend that 

“direct transfer in a closed line” appears in the patents’ 

specifications, nor has he identified any portion of the 

patents’ prosecution history that would support reading in 

this limitation. Instead, he argues that the specifications

“contemplate a direct transfer of fluid from one phaser 

chamber to the other in a closed circuit” because the 

“Summary of the Invention” sections of the asserted 

patents state that “increasing the volume of one or the 

other of the[] chambers and correlatively decreasing the 

volume of the opposite chamber . . . is accomplished with 

the joint action of the unidirectional communication 

circuits and distribution means, which thereby vary the 

phase difference . . . by an exchange of hydraulic liquid 

between the two chambers.” ’017 patent, col. 2 ll. 4–10 

(emphasis added); see also ’506 patent, col. 2 ll. 7–13; ’ 254 

patent, col. 2 ll. 17–21. This language, however, is hardly 

tantamount to “direct transfer in a closed line.” 

Melchior further argues that a statement made in the 

district court’s Markman order explaining its construction 

of a different claim term supports reading claim 22 to 

require “direct transfer in a closed line.” Specifically, 

regarding its construction of the limitation “oppositely 

acting . . . hydraulic means,” the district court explained 

that “[a] phase shift occurs when there is a direct transfer 

of hydraulic fluid from one chamber to another.” J.A. 

 

“transferring” step to mean “permitting fluid to flow out of 

one hydraulic means and into the other oppositely acting 

hydraulic means.” Id.

Case: 15-1932 Document: 62-2 Page: 10 Filed: 12/12/2016
MELCHIOR v. HILITE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 11

4388. But the fact that the district court in explanation 

referred to a “direct transfer” in construing another claim 

term does not render it a claim limitation, or part of the 

court’s claim construction. Melchior’s expert also conceded 

that the words “direct transfer” do not appear in the 

district court’s claim construction, and that his testimony 

relied only on his “interpretation of the [c]ourt’s construction.” J.A. 7600–01. And critically, the explanations in the 

district court’s Markman order—including the reference

to “direct transfer”—were never given to the jury.4

 

4 For the first time at oral argument, Melchior’s 

counsel argued that the district court’s construction of two 

means-plus-function limitations in claims 23 and 25 of the 

’017 patent supported reading the claims to require direct 

transfer in a closed line. See Oral Argument at 28:30, 

Melchior v. Hilite Int’l, Inc., No. 15-1932 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 

2016), available at http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov

/default.aspx?fl=2015-1932.mp3. The district court construed “valve means for selectively permitting flow out of 

one or another of the first and second hydraulic means 

into an inlet line leading to the other of the first and 

second hydraulic means,” and “check valve means in the 

inlet line for permitting hydraulic fluid to flow 

therethrough only into the other of the first and second 

hydraulic means.” ’017 patent, col. 12 ll. 40–46, col.13, ll. 

4–10. The district court concluded that the structure for 

the former was the “necessary connection comprising [a] 

communication circuit and [a] check valve,” and that the 

function for the latter was to “[p]ermit[] hydraulic fluid to 

flow . . . only into the other of the first and second hydraulic means.” J.A. 4390 (emphasis added). 

Melchior’s new argument is waived. See James v. 

Santella, 328 F.3d 1374, 1383–84 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Melchior has agreed that claim 22 of the ’017 patent is representative, and has never suggested that claims 23 and 25 

are materially distinguishable from claim 22 for the 

Case: 15-1932 Document: 62-2 Page: 11 Filed: 12/12/2016
12 MELCHIOR v. HILITE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

Our cases establish that prior art cannot be distinguished on the ground that it lacks features that are not 

claim limitations. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC, v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1252–54 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

(“Anticipation challenges under § 102 must focus only on 

the limitations actually recited in the claims.” (emphasis 

added)); In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009) 

(“[W]here the claims themselves do not require a particular activity, we have no call to require something more 

from the anticipating reference.”); Verdegaal Bros. v. 

Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 632 (Fed. Cir. 1987)

(“[T]here is no limitation in the subject claims with respect to the rate at which sulfuric acid is added, and, 

therefore, it is inappropriate for Verdegaal to rely on that 

distinction.”). Here, Melchior has conceded that Danckert 

satisfies all limitations of claim 22, except for one feature 

that we have concluded is not a claim limitation. Accordingly, the jury’s verdict of no anticipation cannot stand 

because it is not supported by substantial evidence. See, 

e.g., DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1254–55; see also, e.g., 

Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 569 F.3d 1335, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 

2009); Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Cable & Wireless Internet 

Servs., Inc., 344 F.3d 1186, 1193–94 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

III

On appeal, the parties have treated the issue of invalidity as to all asserted claims as turning solely on whether claim 22 is anticipated by Danckert, and properly so. 

 

purpose of anticipation; Melchior’s invalidity expert, 

moreover, never relied on the limitations in claims 23 and 

25 to overcome Danckert. Even if this argument were not 

waived, the district court’s construction does not read the 

claims to require “direct transfer in a closed line.” The 

district court’s construction simply constrains the “valve 

means” or “check valve means” to structures that “selectively” permit flow “only” in one direction instead of back 

into the original chamber. 

Case: 15-1932 Document: 62-2 Page: 12 Filed: 12/12/2016
MELCHIOR v. HILITE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 13

However, at trial, the defense of anticipation was limited

to claims 22–25 of the ’017 patent. With respect to the 

remaining asserted claims of the ’506 and ’254 patents, 

the issue is whether those claims would have been obvious over Danckert in view of Shirai. 

Like claims 22–25 of the ’017 patent, the asserted 

claims of the ’506 and ’254 patents require hydraulic 

components that are “reactive to” or “actuat[ed] . . . in 

reaction to . . . torque reversals.” ’506 patent, col. 11 ll. 

47–53, col. 12 ll. 44–50, col. 14 ll. 3; ’254 patent, col. 20 ll. 

12–15. But these claims are not anticipated by Danckert 

because claims 7–10, 12–15, and 18 of the ’506 patent 

further require, in relevant part, “a housing . . . rotatable 

with” the camshaft and “having at least one recess . . . 

defining a fluid receiving chamber and receiving therein 

at least one lobe . . . oscillatable within [the] at least one 

recess,” and “rotary movement transmitting means for 

transmitting rotary movement from the crankshaft.” ’506 

patent, col. 11 ll. 38–47, col. 12 ll. 33–43, col. 13 ll. 49–57.

Claim 5 of the ’254 patent additionally recites “first and 

second hydraulic chambers” that are “subdivided . . . into 

subchambers complementary in volume to each other.” 

’254 patent, col. 19 ll. 54–65.

As Hilite’s invalidity expert succinctly summarized, 

the difference between the ’506 patent claims and 

Danckert is that the former are drawn to a “rotary” cam 

phaser, while the latter discloses only a “linear” cam 

phaser. Transcript of Jury Trial, Volume 4, at 271, Melchior v. Hilite Int’l, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-03094-M (N.D. Tex. 

Feb. 24, 2015), ECF No. 278. Similarly, claim 5 of the ’254 

patent requires “subchambers” instead of the pair of 

chambers taught by Danckert. Id. at 268–69. Hilite’s

expert testified that these elements are all taught by 

Shirai, that it would been obvious for one of ordinary skill 

in the art to combine the teachings of Danckert with 

Shirai, and that the results would satisfy all limitations of 

the asserted claims in the ’506 and ’254 patents.

Case: 15-1932 Document: 62-2 Page: 13 Filed: 12/12/2016
14 MELCHIOR v. HILITE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

Melchior did not challenge Hilite’s obviousness rationale at trial, nor has he done so on appeal. To the 

contrary, Melchior’s expert conceded to the jury that, with 

respect to the ’506 patent, “Melchior’s invention is simply 

applying his circuit to [a] known configuration.” Transcript of Jury Trial, Volume 5, at 145, Melchior v. Hilite 

Int’l, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-03094-M (N.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2015), 

ECF No. 279; see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 

U.S. 398, 417 (2007). The only argument Melchior presented at trial against Hilite’s invalidity defense of obviousness was that Danckert did not teach “direct transfer 

in a closed line,” i.e., that Danckert did not anticipate.

Accordingly, because Melchior’s sole argument 

against obviousness was premised on a lack of anticipation, we conclude that the remaining claims are invalid as 

obvious over Danckert in view of Shirai, and that the 

jury’s verdict of nonobviousness with respect to the remaining claims is not supported by substantial evidence.

See Leggett Platt & Inc. v. VUTEk Inc., 537 F.3d 1349, 

1356 (Fed Cir. 2008). In light of our disposition, we decline to address any of the other issues raised in Hilite’s 

appeal, including that the district court should have 

granted JMOL of noninfringement or otherwise erred in 

its claim construction.

CONCLUSION

The district court’s denial of Hilite’s motion for judgment as a matter of law is 

REVERSED

Case: 15-1932 Document: 62-2 Page: 14 Filed: 12/12/2016
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

JEAN MELCHIOR,

Plaintiff-Appellee

BORGWARNER, INC.,

BORGWARNER MORSE TEC INC.,

Third Party Defendants

v.

HILITE INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________ 

2015-1932

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Texas in No. 3:11-cv-03094-M, Judge 

Barbara M.G. Lynn.

______________________ 

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment of no 

liability.

With all respect to the panel majority, I do not share 

the view that the claims, correctly construed, are invalid 

for anticipation. The jury verdict sustaining validity on 

this ground is supported by substantial evidence. Anticipation “requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in 

Case: 15-1932 Document: 62-2 Page: 15 Filed: 12/12/2016
2 MELCHIOR v. HILITE INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

the claim.” Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 

1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983); see also Therasense, Inc. v. 

Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir.

2010); SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 709 F.3d 1365, 

1375 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The record contains sufficient 

evidence to support a jury finding that Danckert’s teaching of a central cavity connected to the pressure source 

did not anticipate the invention described and claimed in 

the Melchior patents.

However, the verdict of infringement is not supported 

by substantial evidence. By joint stipulation, both parties 

agreed that no infringement existed at any point in time 

when the external oil pump in the accused devices was 

operational. J.A. 5709. To support its infringement 

theory, Melchior had to present evidence establishing that 

the accused devices, in the fraction-of-a-second transition 

between hold and advance modes, operated contrary to 

design by sealing off the oil pump check valve. No such 

evidence appears on the record. All evidence of engine 

operation illustrates oil flowing through the pump valve, 

even during the transition mode described above. 

On the basis that infringement was not established, I 

concur in the judgment of no liability.

Case: 15-1932 Document: 62-2 Page: 16 Filed: 12/12/2016