Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01829/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01829-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC
Appellant
Jewell Attachments, LLC
Appellee
X-Body Equipment, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ADVANCED STEEL RECOVERY, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

X-BODY EQUIPMENT, INC., JEWELL 

ATTACHMENTS, LLC,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2014-1829

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of California in No. 2:12-cv-01004-GEBDAD, Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. 

______________________ 

Decided: November 12, 2015

______________________ 

WAYNE M. BARSKY, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 

Los Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also 

represented by BLAINE H. EVANSON, JENNIFER RHO; CASEY 

JAMES MCCRACKEN, Irvine, CA; DANIEL M. CISLO, KELLY 

W. CUNNINGHAM, MARK D. NIELSEN, Cislo & Thomas LLP, 

Los Angeles, CA. 

ROBERT M. HARKINS, JR., Locke Lord, LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by HUGH S. BALSAM, Chicago, IL. 

______________________ 

Case: 14-1829 Document: 61-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/12/2015
2 ADVANCED STEEL RECOVERY, LLC v. X-BODY EQUIPMENT, INC. 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges.

STOLL, Circuit Judge.

Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC (“Advanced Steel”) appeals the district court’s summary judgment that X-Body

Equipment, Inc. and Jewell Attachments, LLC (collectively, “X-Body”) do not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. 

Patent No. 8,061,950 (“the ’950 patent”). For the reasons 

below, we affirm as to both literal infringement and 

infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. 

BACKGROUND

Advanced Steel owns by assignment the ’950 patent, 

describing systems and methods of loading shipping 

containers with bulk material for storage or transport. 

Material is loaded into the top of a rectangular container 

packer, which is moved along a transfer base by a hydraulically powered piston-and-cylinder unit towards a shipping container. A second piston-and-cylinder unit then 

pushes the material out of the container packer and into 

the shipping container by a push blade. Figure 10 of the 

’950 patent shows a container packer system with the 

container packer depicted as extending partly into a 

shipping container. 

Case: 14-1829 Document: 61-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/12/2015
ADVANCED STEEL RECOVERY, LLC v. X-BODY EQUIPMENT, INC. 3

Relevant to this appeal, the asserted claims of the 

’950 patent require that the first piston-and-cylinder unit 

(the “container packer piston-and-cylinder unit”) be 

connected to the “transfer base proximate end” and the 

“container packer proximate end.” ’950 patent col. 5 

ll. 23–25 (emphases added). Representative claim 1, with

the disputed claim terms italicized for emphasis, recites 

the following: 

1. A container packing system, which comprises:

a transfer base including proximate and 

distal ends and a container packer guide;

a container packer including a proximate 

end, a distal end with an opening, opposite 

sidewalls, a floor and an interior;

said container packer being movable longitudinally along said container packer 

guide between a retracted position on said 

transfer base and an extended position extending at least partially from said transfer base distal end;

a container packer drive connected to said 

transfer base and said container packer 

and adapted for moving said container 

packer between its extended and retracted 

positions;

a material transfer assembly mounted in 

said container packer interior and adapted 

for discharging bulk material through said 

container packer distal end opening;

a material transfer assembly drive connected to said material transfer assembly 

and adapted for operating said material 

transfer assembly;

Case: 14-1829 Document: 61-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/12/2015
4 ADVANCED STEEL RECOVERY, LLC v. X-BODY EQUIPMENT, INC. 

said material transfer assembly comprising a push blade assembly located in and 

affixed to said container packer and movable longitudinally between a retracted 

position in proximity to said container 

packer proximate end and an extended position in proximity to said container packer distal end;

said push blade assembly including a push 

blade extending transversely across said 

container packer interior;

said container packer drive comprising a 

container packer piston-and-cylinder unit 

connected to said transfer base proximate 

end and said container packer proximate 

end; 

an hydraulic power source mounted on 

said transfer base and connected to said 

container packer piston-and-cylinder unit;

said material transfer assembly drive 

comprising a push blade assembly pistonand-cylinder unit connected to said hydraulic power source and adapted for extending and retracting said push blade 

assembly between an extended position 

distally beyond said transfer base distal 

end and a retracted position adjacent to 

said container packer proximate end within said container packer interior, said 

push blade assembly movement sequentially cooperating with said container 

packer movement whereby said push 

blade assembly is adapted for compacting 

bulk material in said container; and

Case: 14-1829 Document: 61-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/12/2015
ADVANCED STEEL RECOVERY, LLC v. X-BODY EQUIPMENT, INC. 5

a transport container selectively located in 

proximity to said transfer base distal end 

and adapted for selectively receiving at 

least a portion of said container packer 

with said container packer in its extended 

position. 

In the accused Acculoader device, which Jewell manufactures and X-Body sells, the container packer pistonand-cylinder unit is connected to the floor of the container 

packer, approximately 35% down its length. The claim 

construction dispute regarding the meaning of “proximate 

end” arose when X-Body moved for summary judgment of 

noninfringement, arguing that “the piston-and-cylinder[] 

for the [container packer] [of the Acculoader] [is] not 

connected to the proximate end of the [container packer] 

at all,” but instead is connected “at a point on the bottom 

of the container packer far from the proximate end.” 

Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equip., Inc., 

No. 2:12-cv-1004-GEB-DAD, 2014 WL 3939356, at *3 

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2014) (“Summary Judgment Order”).

The district court determined that the ’950 patent did 

not contemplate a particular definition of the term “proximate end” and that the ordinary meaning applies. The 

court then looked to a dictionary definition of “end” and 

construed the term as “the extreme or last part lengthwise.” Id. at *4 (citing Webster’s Third New International 

Dictionary, definition 1(c)(2) (1986)). In doing so, the 

court rejected Advanced Steel’s broad construction of 

“proximate end” as “back half.” 

Turning to the infringement issue, the district court 

found that, in the Acculoader, the “connection point [of 

the container packer piston-and-cylinder unit to the 

container packer] is not at the proximate end.” Id. As 

such, the court determined that “the Acculoader does not 

literally infringe the ’950 patent.” Id. On the doctrine of 

equivalents, the court determined that “[n]o reasonable 

Case: 14-1829 Document: 61-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/12/2015
6 ADVANCED STEEL RECOVERY, LLC v. X-BODY EQUIPMENT, INC. 

jury could find [the Acculoader’s] connection point to be 

equivalent to the ‘container packer proximate end.’” Id. at 

*5. Accordingly, the district court granted summary 

judgment of noninfringement to X-Body for both literal 

infringement and infringement under the doctrine of 

equivalents. 

Advanced Steel timely appealed to this court. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

DISCUSSION

We review a district court’s summary judgment decision under the law of the regional circuit, here the Ninth 

Circuit. Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 769 F.3d 

1371, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Ninth Circuit reviews 

the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo. Humane Soc’y of U.S. v. Locke, 626 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir.

2010). Summary judgment is proper where “the movant 

shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material 

fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

Determining infringement requires two steps: construing the claims and comparing the properly construed 

claims to the accused product. Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, 

Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The “ultimate 

interpretation” of a claim term, as well as interpretations 

of “evidence intrinsic to the patent (the patent claims and 

specifications, along with the patent’s prosecution history),” are legal conclusions, which this court reviews de 

novo. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 

831, 841 (2015). Where a district court “make[s] factual 

findings about . . . extrinsic evidence[, however,] th[e] 

subsidiary factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on 

appeal.” Id. “[T]he words of a claim are generally given 

their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips v. AWH 

Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). To determine the scope and 

meaning of the asserted claims, we look to the words of 

Case: 14-1829 Document: 61-2 Page: 6 Filed: 11/12/2015
ADVANCED STEEL RECOVERY, LLC v. X-BODY EQUIPMENT, INC. 7

the claims themselves, the specification, the prosecution 

history, and if necessary, any relevant extrinsic evidence. 

Id. at 1315–17. 

“Infringement, whether literal or under the doctrine 

of equivalents, is a question of fact.” Absolute Software, 

Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc., 659 F.3d 1121, 1129–30 

(Fed. Cir. 2011). Summary judgment of noninfringement 

is proper when no reasonable jury could find that every 

limitation recited in a properly construed claim is found 

in the accused device either literally or under the doctrine

of equivalents. PC Connector Sols. LLC v. SmartDisk

Corp., 406 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

A. Claim Construction

On appeal, Advanced Steel faults the district court for 

too narrowly construing “proximate end” to mean the

extreme or absolute edge of the container packer. Advanced Steel argues that the “proximate end” of the 

container packer should instead be construed as the “back 

half” or “the portion or region that is opposite the distal 

end.” Appellant’s Br. 13. But Advanced Steel mischaracterizes the district court’s construction. The court did not 

actually construe “proximate end” as the “extreme edge,” 

“absolute edge,” or the like. Instead, the district court 

interpreted “proximate end” as “the extreme or last part 

lengthwise.” Summary Judgment Order at *4 (emphasis 

added). The district court’s use of the disjunctive “or” is 

most properly understood as meaning that the proximate 

end of the container packer includes not just the “extreme” end, but also the “last part.” See SkinMedica, Inc. 

v. Histogen Inc., 727 F.3d 1187, 1199 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

(explaining that “or” “plainly designates” alternatives). 

Indeed, the court’s cited examples of common use of the 

term “end,” such as “the rear [end] of an automobile,” 

support this understanding. Summary Judgment Order

at *4. 

Case: 14-1829 Document: 61-2 Page: 7 Filed: 11/12/2015
8 ADVANCED STEEL RECOVERY, LLC v. X-BODY EQUIPMENT, INC. 

As properly understood, the district court’s construction is supported by the claims and specification. The 

specification does not expressly define “proximate end.” 

Yet every figure that depicts the disputed connection 

shows the container packer piston-and-cylinder unit 

connected to the container packer at the container packer’s extreme edge. See, e.g., ’950 patent Figs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 

10; see also CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Tura LP, 112 F.3d

1146, 1153 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[P]atent drawings are highly 

relevant in construing the . . . limitations of the claims.”). 

The specification also depicts other “ends” as the

structure’s extreme edge. For example, the multi-stage 

insertion/extraction piston-and-cylinder unit (30) has a 

proximate end (28) and distal end (32), both of which are 

depicted in the figures as the extreme parts of the unit 

lengthwise. ’950 patent col. 3 ll. 28–33, Figs. 2, 4. In 

addition, the description of the piston-and-cylinder proximate end (58) describes the anchor structure (62) as 

connected to the piston-and-cylinder proximate end (58), 

which is shown at the unit’s extreme edge. Id. col. 3 

l. 66 – col. 4 l. 2, Fig. 5. And the “ends” of the container 

packer itself (34, 36) are labeled as the extreme ends. See

id. Figs. 5, 6, 7. 

Advanced Steel advocates against the district court’s 

construction by pointing to the connection of the pistonand-cylinder unit (30) to the transfer base (4) in Figure 2 

to argue that the “proximate end” is shown as offset from 

the absolute edge by as much as 10%. Thus, according to 

Advanced Steel, the district court’s construction excludes 

this preferred embodiment. We do not find this argument 

persuasive. The district court’s construction, understood 

as “the extreme or last part lengthwise,” allows for the 

connection point to be offset from the absolute edge. We 

find the district court’s construction of “proximate end” to 

be consistent with the connection at the transfer base as 

depicted in Figure 2. 

Case: 14-1829 Document: 61-2 Page: 8 Filed: 11/12/2015
ADVANCED STEEL RECOVERY, LLC v. X-BODY EQUIPMENT, INC. 9

Advanced Steel also points to alternative dictionary 

definitions to support its position that “proximate end” 

should be construed as “the portion or region that is 

opposite the distal end.” Appellant’s Reply Br. 13. For 

example, Advanced Steel cites dictionaries that define 

“end” as “the portion of an area or territory that lies at or 

by the termination and that often serves as a delimitation 

or boundary”; “the part of an area that lies at the boundary”; and a “part or place at or adjacent to an extremity.” 

Id. at 27–28. These dictionaries, however, define “end” 

relative to the termination or extremity—i.e., at or near 

where the structure ceases to exist—and are consistent 

with the district court’s construction. They certainly do 

not support Advanced Steel’s broad construction, defining 

“end” as the back half or any portion or region opposite 

the other end. We thus agree with the district court’s 

construction of “proximate end” as “the extreme or last 

part lengthwise.” 

B. Literal Infringement

We affirm the district court’s summary judgment of 

no literal infringement. It is undisputed that the container packer piston-and-cylinder unit in X-Body’s Acculoader

is connected to the bottom of the container packer, approximately 35% down its length. This connection is 

shown in the drawing below:

Case: 14-1829 Document: 61-2 Page: 9 Filed: 11/12/2015
10 ADVANCED STEEL RECOVERY, LLC v. X-BODY EQUIPMENT, INC. 

Appellees’ Br. 24 (figure modified); see also Summary 

Judgment Order at *3. 

“To establish literal infringement, every limitation set 

forth in a claim must be found in an accused product, 

exactly.” Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 

54 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Here, the asserted 

claims are narrowly and specifically drawn, reciting “a 

container packer including a proximate end, a distal end 

with an opening, opposite sidewalls, a floor, and an interior.” ’950 patent col. 4 ll. 65–66 (emphases added). The 

claims thus define the “floor” of the container as being a 

separate element from the proximate end. Because the 

piston-and-cylinder unit in X-Body’s Acculoader attaches 

to the floor, nearly 35% away from the extreme end, no 

reasonable jury could find that the Acculoader’s pistonand-cylinder unit is connected to the container packer’s 

proximate end. Thus, we affirm the district court’s summary judgment of no literal infringement.

We note that, while the district court properly construed “proximate end” as the “extreme or last part 

lengthwise,” its infringement analysis compared the 

accused device to the extreme end as opposed to the 

“extreme or last part lengthwise.” See Summary Judgment Order at *4 (“The container packer piston-andcylinder unit is connected to the Acculoader container 

packer 164.81 inches from the proximate end of the 

sidewalls of the container packer . . . .”). But “[w]e sit to 

review judgments, not opinions,” Stratoflex, Inc. v. 

Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983), and 

Case: 14-1829 Document: 61-2 Page: 10 Filed: 11/12/2015
ADVANCED STEEL RECOVERY, LLC v. X-BODY EQUIPMENT, INC. 11

we agree with the district court’s ultimate determination 

that “this connection point [in the Acculoader] is not at 

the proximate end,” as construed to mean “the extreme or 

last part lengthwise,” Summary Judgment Order at *4. 

C. Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents

While infringement under the doctrine of equivalents 

is a question of fact, “[w]here the evidence is such that no 

reasonable jury could determine two elements to be 

equivalent, district courts are obliged to grant partial or 

complete summary judgment.” Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. 

Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 39 n.8 (1997). “[A] 

patentee must . . . provide particularized testimony and 

linking argument as to the insubstantiality of the differences between the claimed invention and the accused 

device or process, or with respect to the function, way, 

result test when such evidence is presented to support a 

finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.” 

AquaTex Indus., Inc. v. Techniche Sols., 479 F.3d 1320, 

1328 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (second alteration in original) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Texas Instruments Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 90 F.3d 1558, 1567 (Fed. Cir.

1996). Our case law also establishes that there are limitations to the doctrine of equivalents. “Whether the result

of the All Limitations Rule, prosecution history estoppel, 

or the inherent narrowness of the claim language, many 

limitations warrant little, if any, range of equivalents.” 

Moore U.S.A., Inc. v. Standard Register Co., 229 F.3d 

1091, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). 

“‘Vitiation’ is not an exception to the doctrine of equivalents, but instead a legal determination that ‘the evidence 

is such that no reasonable jury could determine two 

elements to be equivalent.’” Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, 

LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 39 n.8). 

To survive summary judgment of noninfringement 

under the doctrine of equivalents, Advanced Steel had to 

Case: 14-1829 Document: 61-2 Page: 11 Filed: 11/12/2015
12 ADVANCED STEEL RECOVERY, LLC v. X-BODY EQUIPMENT, INC. 

present evidence of equivalence under each prong of the 

function-way-result test. Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! 

Inc., 755 F.3d 1326, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “That a 

claimed invention and an accused device may perform 

substantially the same function and may achieve the 

same result will not make the latter an infringement 

under the doctrine of equivalents where it performs the 

function and achieves the result in a substantially different way.” Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. 

Corp., 822 F.2d 1528, 1532 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Here, 

Advanced Steel failed to meet its burden of showing that 

the Acculoader performs in substantially the same way as 

the claimed invention. 

Advanced Steel’s evidence on equivalence was submitted in the form of expert affidavits. In opining on the 

“way” prong of the function-way-result test, the expert 

stated that “there is no substantial difference between 

having a connection in the bottom middle and having a 

connection at the absolute back end” of the container 

packer because “in both cases, the Acculoader’s container 

packer rides along horizontal guides, and the cylinder 

unit is hydraulically powered.” J.A. 1492. But the features Advanced Steel’s expert points to—the guides and 

hydraulically powered piston-and-cylinder unit—are just 

additional claim elements. ’950 patent col. 5 ll. 1–2 

(“container packer being movable longitudinally along 

said container packer guide”), ll. 28–30 (“an hydraulic 

power source . . . connected to said container packer 

piston-and-cylinder unit”). So his testimony, purporting 

to establish equivalence of “proximate end” with “floor,”

disregards the limitation at issue and merely points to 

satisfaction of other claim limitations. 

A patentee, bearing the burden of showing equivalence, cannot merely point to other claim limitations to 

satisfy the doctrine of equivalents. Doing so runs afoul of 

the “all-elements rule” articulated in Warner-Jenkinson. 

See 520 U.S. at 40 (“A focus on individual elements and a 

Case: 14-1829 Document: 61-2 Page: 12 Filed: 11/12/2015
ADVANCED STEEL RECOVERY, LLC v. X-BODY EQUIPMENT, INC. 13

special vigilance against allowing the concept of equivalence to eliminate completely any such elements should 

reduce considerably the imprecision of whatever language 

is used.”). Advanced Steel’s attempt to establish that the 

Acculoader functions in substantially the same way as the 

claimed invention by reference only to other claim elements does not satisfy its burden on the doctrine of equivalents. See also AquaTex Indus., 479 F.3d at 1328

(“Generalized testimony as to the overall similarity between the claims and the accused infringer’s product or 

process will not suffice.” (quoting Texas Instruments, 90 

F.3d at 1567)). 

It is undisputed that the Acculoader’s piston-andcylinder unit is connected to the floor of the container 

packer approximately 35% away from the extreme proximate end. While the term “proximate end” by no means 

precludes some offset from the absolute end, we find no 

error in the district court’s conclusion that “no reasonable 

jury could find this connection point to be equivalent to 

the ‘container packer proximate end.’” Summary Judgment Order at *5. In view of the evidence of equivalence 

presented here and the narrowness of the asserted claims, 

we find the range of equivalents does not extend to the 

connection point in the Acculoader. See Vehicular Techs. 

Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int’l, Inc., 212 F.3d 1377, 1382 

(Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[T]he range of equivalents cannot be 

divorced from the scope of the claims.”). To find otherwise 

would ignore the precise and specific structural limitations in the claims. We thus conclude that the district 

court did not err in granting summary judgment of noninfringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

Advanced Steel complains that the district court erred 

because it relied solely on vitiation to support its determination of noninfringement. But we review judgments, not

opinions. Stratoflex, 713 F.2d at 1540. And as we have 

explained, “saying that a claim element would be vitiated 

is akin to saying that there is no equivalent to the claim 

Case: 14-1829 Document: 61-2 Page: 13 Filed: 11/12/2015
14 ADVANCED STEEL RECOVERY, LLC v. X-BODY EQUIPMENT, INC. 

element in the accused device based on the wellestablished ‘function-way-result’ or ‘insubstantial differences’ tests.” Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. GuideTech, 

LLC, 707 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Here, for the 

reasons discussed above, we agree with the district court’s 

judgment that there is no equivalence based on the function-way-result test. 

Because we affirm summary judgment of noninfringement, we do not reach X-Body’s alternative arguments for affirmance.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district 

court’s grant of summary judgment that X-Body does not 

infringe the asserted claims of the ’950 patent literally or 

under the doctrine of equivalents. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 14-1829 Document: 61-2 Page: 14 Filed: 11/12/2015