Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01594/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01594-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Masaba, Inc.
Appellee
Superior Industries, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MASABA, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-1594

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Minnesota in No. 0:10-CV-00764-DWF-LIB, 

Judge Donovan W. Frank.

______________________ 

Decided: June 2, 2016 

______________________ 

JOHN M. WEYRAUCH, Dicke, Billig & Czaja, PLLC, 

Minneapolis, MN, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also 

represented by PETER R. FORREST, PAUL P. KEMPF. 

TIM R. SHATTUCK, Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith 

P.C., Sioux Falls, SD, argued for defendant-appellee. Also 

represented by SANDER J. MOREHEAD; JEFFREY CARL 

BROWN, Sapientia Law Group PLLC, Minneapolis, MN.

 

______________________ 

Case: 15-1594 Document: 55-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/02/2016
2 SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES, INC. v. MASABA, INC. 

Before REYNA, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

HUGHES, Circuit Judge. 

Superior Industries sued Masaba for infringing its patents on a drive-over truck dump conveyor system and a 

braced telescoping support strut. The district court 

construed a number of terms across the five patents at 

issue, and granted summary judgment of noninfringement as to all asserted claims. On appeal, Superior 

argues that the district court erred in construing the 

claims. Because we find that the district court correctly 

construed “ramp section,” “support frame,” and “channel 

beam,” we affirm.

I 

Superior Industries, Inc. (Superior) owns two sets of 

patents that we refer to as the “Unloader Patents” and 

the “Support Strut Patents.” The Unloader Patents are 

U.S. Patent No. 7,424,943, U.S. Patent No. 7,607,529, and 

U.S. Patent No. 7,845,482.1 The Support Strut Patents 

are U.S. Patent No. 7,470,101 and U.S. Patent No. 

7,618,231.2 

The Unloader Patents are directed to a truck unloader 

system with a drive-over ramp system and a conveyor 

system to transport deposited material from a truck to a 

hopper. ’943 patent, col. 1 ll. 39–45. The drive-over ramp 

has three ramp sections, where the third ramp section is 

located between the first and second ramp sections. Id. at 

col. 1 ll. 47–52. 

1 The Unloader Patents are related to one another 

and share substantially similar specifications. The ’943 

patent is the parent patent.

2 The ’231 patent is a continuation of the ’101 patent and has a substantially similar specification. 

 

Case: 15-1594 Document: 55-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/02/2016
SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES, INC. v. MASABA, INC. 3

The independent claims at issue in the Unloader Patents are claim 2 of the ’943 patent, claims 1 and 15 of the 

’529 patent, and claims 1 and 5 of the ’482 patent.3 The 

primary disputed terms are “support frame” and “ramp 

section,” which appear in all of the asserted independent 

claims except for claim 15 of the ’529 patent.

Claim 2 of the ’943 patent is representative of claim 1 

of the ’529 patent and claim 1 of the ’482 patent,4 and 

contains the “support frame” term. Claim 2 reads, in 

relevant part:

2. A portable truck dump comprising: . . . 

a support frame positionable on the ground adjacent 

to the first end of the frame on each of the first and second sides of the frame, the support frame comprising a 

frame member extending along the second end of each of 

the first and second ramps, the frame member having a 

height generally equal to a height of the second end of 

each ramp when the second end of each ramp is supported 

above the ground, wherein the frame member is configured to support an end of an earthen ramp constructed 

against the frame member to provide a material transport 

vehicle access to the first and second ramps to deposit 

material over the grate, and to maintain the integrity of 

the earthen ramp when the first and second ramps are 

pivoted toward the grate.

3 Superior asserted claims 2–6 of the ’943 patent, 

claims 1–5, 7, 9, 15, and 19 of the ’529 patent, and claims 

1–3 and 5 of the ’482 patent. 

4 Rather than a “support frame,” claim 1 of the ’529 

patent requires a “ramp support frame” and claim 1 of the 

’482 patent requires a “U-shaped frame.” The parties 

treat these terms as equivalent to “support frame,” and 

the district court issued the same construction as to all 

three terms. 

 

Case: 15-1594 Document: 55-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/02/2016
4 SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES, INC. v. MASABA, INC. 

’943 patent, col. 8 ll. 5–43. 

Claim 5 of the ’482 patent contains the “ramp section” 

term,5 and reads, in relevant part:

5. A portable conveyor system with a drive-over material receiving opening, the conveyor system comprising: 

. . . 

a drive-over ramp system near the first end of the 

frame, the drive-over ramp system comprising a first 

ramp section pivotally mounted on a first side of the 

frame, the first ramp section having a first pair of side 

walls on opposite sides thereof, a second ramp section 

pivotally on a second side of the frame, the second ramp 

section having a second pair of side walls on opposite 

sides thereof, and a third ramp section supported on the 

frame between the first and second ramp sections, the 

third ramp section comprising a grate positioned over a 

portion of the conveyor belt assembly for receiving bulk 

material from a material transport vehicle and having a 

third pair of side walls on opposite sides thereof, the first, 

second and third pair of side walls cooperating to retain 

excess bulk material deposited by the material transport 

vehicle on the drive over ramp system, wherein the first 

and second pair of side walls are moveable relative to the 

third pair of side walls as the first and second ramp 

sections pivot from a first lowered position to a second 

raised position.

’482 patent, col. 8 ll. 26–55. 

The Support Strut Patents are directed to a telescoping support strut that holds up a conveyor system. ’101 

patent, col. 1 ll. 35–37. The support strut is comprised of 

5 Claim 1 of the ’529 patent also contains the “ramp 

section” limitation, but the court’s construction was issued 

with respect to claim 5 of the ’482 patent. J.A. 886–87.

 

Case: 15-1594 Document: 55-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/02/2016
SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES, INC. v. MASABA, INC. 5

two sections: a “first strut section” and a “second strut 

section.” Each strut section is comprised of a pair of 

parallel beams that are braced together. Id. at col. 1 ll. 

37–45. The second strut section’s beams are referred to 

as “channel beams,” and are configured to “telescopically 

receive and substantially surround a respective beam of 

the first strut section.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 46–48. 

The independent claims at issue in the Support Strut 

Patents are claims 1, 6, and 8 of the ’101 patent and 

claims 1, 7, 14, and 15 of the ’231 patent.6 The primary 

disputed terms are “channel beam” and “elongate opening.” The term “channel beam” appears in all of the 

asserted independent claims. Claim 1 of the ’101 patent 

is representative, and reads, in relevant part:

1. A telescoping support strut configured to support 

a conveyor assembly of a portable conveyor system relative to a base frame, the support strut comprising: . . . 

a second strut section having a first generally Cshaped channel beam and a second generally C-shaped 

channel beam, the first and second channel beams having 

a generally equal length and being generally parallel to 

one another, the first and second channel beams each 

comprising a perimeter wall and an elongate opening that 

extends the length of the first and second channel beams, 

the elongate opening of the first channel beam facing the 

elongate opening of the second channel beam, the first 

and second channel beams defining an open space between the respective elongate openings, and a plurality of 

braces coupled between the first and second channel 

beams outside of the open space, the first and second 

channel beams each having a first end configured to 

pivotally connect to the base frame of the portable con6 Superior asserted claims 1–8 of the ’101 patent 

and claims 1–15 of the ’231 patent. 

 

Case: 15-1594 Document: 55-2 Page: 5 Filed: 06/02/2016
6 SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES, INC. v. MASABA, INC. 

veyor system and a second end configured to receive the 

second ends of the first and second beams, respectively, of 

the first strut section, the first strut section movable 

within the second strut section . . . 

’101 patent, col. 8 ll. 24–58. 

The court construed a number of terms across the five 

asserted patents. For the Unloader Patents, “support 

frame” was construed as “a frame consisting of a pair of 

side frame members and an end frame member that 

provides a barrier for supporting an earthen ramp that 

can also provide support for a pivoting ramp when it is in 

a lowered position.” J.A. 862. The term “ramp section” 

was construed as “first/second ramp section including a 

ramp and a frame consisting of a pair of side frame members and an end frame member that provides a barrier for 

supporting an earthen ramp that can also provide support 

for the pivoting ramp when it is in a lowered position.” 

J.A. 887. For the Support Strut Patents, the term “channel beam” was construed as “a metal beam having a 

perimeter wall with three complete sides and one partial 

side configured to substantially surround all four sides of 

the respective beam it engages with.” J.A. 899. The term 

“elongate opening” was construed as “slot defined by the 

openings in the partial fourth sides of the channel 

beams.” J.A. 900.

Superior sued Masaba, Inc. (Masaba) for infringing 

the Unloader Patents and Support Strut Patents through 

the manufacture and sale of five different truck unloader 

models. The district court granted Superior’s summary 

judgment motion of noninfringement subject to the right 

to appeal the court’s claim constructions, because Superior had conceded that it could not prevail on its infringement claims under the court’s constructions. We vacated 

the district court’s decision and remanded for further 

clarification because the court’s summary judgment 

opinion failed to explain how the court’s construction of 

Case: 15-1594 Document: 55-2 Page: 6 Filed: 06/02/2016
SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES, INC. v. MASABA, INC. 7

any term would affect Superior’s infringement claims. 

Superior Indus., Inc. v. Masaba, Inc., 553 F. App’x 986, 

990–91 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 16, 2014). On remand, the court 

granted Masaba’s summary judgment of noninfringement

as to both sets of patents. 

Superior appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 

II

We review a grant of summary judgment under the 

law of the regional circuit. Charles Mach. Works, Inc. v. 

Vermeer Mfg. Co., 723 F.3d 1376, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

The Eighth Circuit reviews summary judgment motions 

de novo. Wilson v. Spain, 209 F.3d 713, 716 (8th Cir. 

2000). We review claim construction de novo, and underlying factual determinations concerning extrinsic evidence 

for clear error. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 

135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015). Infringement is a question of 

fact. 01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. LogMeIn, Inc., 687 

F.3d 1292, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “On appeal from a grant 

of summary judgment of non-infringement, we determine 

whether, after resolving reasonable factual inferences in 

favor of the patentee, the district court correctly concluded that no reasonable jury could find infringement.” Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted).

A 

The court granted summary judgment of noninfringement of the Unloader Patents based on its claim 

constructions of “support frame” and “ramp section.” J.A. 

12–15. Both constructions require the support frame be 

capable of supporting an earthen ramp, which enables a 

truck to access the claimed low-profile ramp system. The 

court determined that Masaba’s accused designs do not 

infringe because they lack an end frame member and use 

Case: 15-1594 Document: 55-2 Page: 7 Filed: 06/02/2016
8 SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES, INC. v. MASABA, INC. 

steel ramps, not earthen ramps.7 J.A. 10–11, 14–15. In 

particular, the court explained that Masaba’s designs A–C 

have “no structure between the pivoting ramps and the 

portable steel access ramps that comprises a barrier at 

all,” J.A. 14, and Masaba’s designs D and E “do not have 

any structure that could be characterized as a ramp 

support frame,” J.A. 15. 

Superior argues that the court erred in construing 

“ramp section” to require a “support frame,” that in turn, 

requires the presence of an earthen ramp. We do not find 

Superior’s arguments persuasive based on the specification and claim language. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 

F.3d 1303, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 

We start with the court’s construction of “support 

frame.” The patents indicate that the “support frame” is 

capable of supporting an earthen ramp. For example, 

claim 2 of the ’943 patent defines the “support frame” as 

“comprising a frame member” that “is configured to support an end of an earthen ramp constructed against the

frame member to provide a material transport vehicle 

access.” ’943 patent, col. 8 ll. 32–40 (emphasis added). 

And, the specifications explicitly define the “present 

invention” by the support frame’s two functions, the first 

of which requires the capability to support an earthen 

ramp: 

Ramp support frame 32 provides two independent 

functions. First, ramp support frame 32 serves as 

a low profile support structure for building an 

earthen ramp to access the ramp system 20. Sec7 While claim 15 of the ’529 patent does not explicitly recite a “support frame,” it similarly requires a “first 

portion” of a ramp “configured to support an earthen 

ramp” and that “maintains support of the earthen ramp.” 

See ’529 patent, col. 10 ll. 5–15. 

 

Case: 15-1594 Document: 55-2 Page: 8 Filed: 06/02/2016
SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES, INC. v. MASABA, INC. 9

ond, ramp support frame can additionally serve as 

a stable base to support ramp 34 at a level of end 

frame member 40B. The present invention contemplates utilizing the first function of ramp support frame 32 alone, or a combination of the first 

and second function of ramp support frame 32. 

’943 patent, col. 3 ll. 26–34 (emphasis added); see also ’529 

patent, col. 3 ll. 20–28; ’482 patent, col. 3 ll. 30–37. Based 

on the patents’ clear and unmistakable statements, the 

district court did not err in concluding that the accused 

devices lack a support frame that forms a barrier capable 

of supporting an earthen ramp. 

As to the “ramp section” construction, the ’943 patent 

explicitly defines the “ramp section” to comprise a support 

frame and a ramp. ’943 patent, col. 1 ll. 54–55 (“Each of 

the first and second ramp sections comprises a support 

frame and a ramp.”). While Superior argues that the 

specifications contain inconsistencies as to whether the 

support frame is part of the ramp section, we do not find 

these alleged inconsistencies persuasive in light of the 

explicit definition of the “ramp section” in the ’943 patent, 

which applies to the ’482 patent. See Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. 

Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[W]e 

presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same claim 

term in the same patent or related patents carries the 

same construed meaning.”). Therefore, we affirm the 

district court’s constructions of “support frame” and “ramp 

section” in the Unloader Patents and its summary judgment of noninfringement of the Unloader Patents.

B 

The court granted summary judgment of noninfringement of the Support Strut Patents, finding that 

Masaba’s accused designs are comprised of tubes that do 

not have channels, and therefore, do not have “channel 

beams,” and that Superior conceded noninfringement 

under the court’s claim construction in summary judgCase: 15-1594 Document: 55-2 Page: 9 Filed: 06/02/2016
10 SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES, INC. v. MASABA, INC. 

ment briefing. J.A. 17; J.A. 955. In light of Superior’s 

concession, we only address whether the court erred in 

construing “channel beam,” because that term appears in 

all of the asserted independent claims of the Support 

Strut Patents. 

The parties dispute whether the “channel beam” has 

three sides or four sides, where the fourth side is a partial 

side. We find that the court correctly construed “channel 

beam” because the specification and claims make clear 

that a “channel beam” must have four sides, where the 

fourth side is a partial side. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 

1313–14.

First, the channel beams are consistently described as 

“configured to surround substantially all four sides of the 

respective beams that they engage with,” ’101 patent, col. 

5 ll. 44–46 (emphasis added); see also id. at col. 1 ll. 46–

48; id. at col. 5 ll. 24–26, which necessarily requires the 

channel beam to have more than three sides. In addition, 

claim 8 of the ’101 patent requires that each channel 

beam “substantially surround a respective beam of the 

first strut section.” Id. at col. 10 ll. 23–29. 

Second, except for claim 8 of the ’101 patent, all of the 

disputed independent claims of the Support Strut Patents

describe the channel beam as “C-shaped.” For example, 

claim 1 of the ’101 patent describes a “first generally Cshaped channel beam and a second generally C-shaped 

channel beam,” ’101 patent, col. 8 ll. 34–36, and claim 1 of 

the ’231 patent states that “the first and second channel 

beams each compris[e] a generally C-shaped perimeter 

wall,” ’231 patent, col. 8 ll. 64–66. The specifications also 

describe the channel beam as “generally C-shaped.” ’101 

patent, col. 5 ll. 59–60; ’231 patent, col. 6 ll. 12–13. 

Of importance, the patents also distinguish between 

channel beams and “U-shaped” beams, where the former 

is comprised of the latter. As depicted on the right side of 

Figure 4B in both patents, a channel beam 60 is made up 

Case: 15-1594 Document: 55-2 Page: 10 Filed: 06/02/2016
SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES, INC. v. MASABA, INC. 11

of two U-shaped beams 123 and 124 joined together by 

plate 125. ’101 patent, col. 5 ll. 10–21. A “U-shaped” 

beam 123 has three sides, comprising “a first leg 126, a 

second leg 127, and a base 128 connecting between first 

and second legs 126, 127.” Id. at col. 5 ll. 12–14. This 

arrangement of the two “U-shaped” beams results in a 

“configuration of first channel beam 60” with “three 

complete sides (base 128, plate 125, base 138) and one 

partial fourth side (defined by legs 126, 136) that combine 

to substantially surround” a beam of the first strut section. Id. at col. 5 ll. 21–26. 

Thus, the patents clearly use the term “U shaped” to 

describe a three-sided beam that forms part of a channel 

beam that is consistently described as “C-shaped.” 

We find that based on the patent disclosures as a 

whole, the term “C shaped” must have a distinct meaning

from “U shaped.” See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321 (“[T]he 

‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the 

ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.”); Anderson v. Int’l Eng’g & Mfg., Inc., 160 F.3d 1345, 1348–49 

(Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[A] word describing patented technology 

takes its definition from the context in which it was used 

by the inventor.”). In light of the clear differentiation 

between “U-shaped” and “C-shaped” beams, and the 

Case: 15-1594 Document: 55-2 Page: 11 Filed: 06/02/2016
12 SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES, INC. v. MASABA, INC. 

description of the “channel beam” as either “C-shaped” or 

“substantially surround[ing] a respective beam of the first 

strut section,” we agree with the district court’s construction of “channel beam.” 

III 

We have considered Superior’s remaining arguments, 

and find them unpersuasive. Because the district court 

did not err in construing the terms “support frame,” 

“ramp section” and “channel beam,” we affirm the grant of 

summary judgment of noninfringement.

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-1594 Document: 55-2 Page: 12 Filed: 06/02/2016