UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SFP WORKS, LLC,

Case No. 14-13575

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

v.

BUFFALO ARMORY LLC,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.

___________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

At a session of said Court, held in

the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan

on October 31, 2016 

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen

United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

In this patent infringement suit, Plaintiff SFP Works, LLC alleges that

Defendant Buffalo Armory LLC has infringed a patent held by Plaintiff, U.S.

Patent No. 8,480,824 (the “‘824 Patent”), by continuing to use Plaintiff’s patented

steel treatment technology after the expiration of a license granting Defendant the

right to use this process. Defendant, in turn, has filed counterclaims against

Plaintiff, seeking declarations that it has not infringed the ‘824 Patent and that this

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 1 of 29 Pg ID 2133
patent is invalid on a number of grounds. This Court’s subject matter jurisdiction

over this case rests upon the parties’ assertion of claims arising under federal

patent law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).

Through the present motion, Defendant seeks an award of summary

judgment in its favor as to Plaintiff’s claim of patent infringement and Defendant’s

counterclaim of patent invalidity. In support of its challenge to Plaintiff’s claim of

patent infringement, Defendant contends that its accused steel treatment process

does not meet two of the limitations of the asserted claims of the ‘824 Patent,

whether literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. As for its claim of

invalidity, Defendant argues that the asserted claims of the ‘824 Patent are invalid

for indefiniteness, are anticipated by the relevant prior art, and are obvious in light

of this prior art.

Defendant’s summary judgment motion has been fully briefed by the

parties. Having carefully and thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs in support of

and in opposition to Defendant’s motion, as well as the exhibits accompanying

these briefs, the Court finds that the relevant facts, legal issues, and authorities are

sufficiently presented in these written submissions, and that oral argument would

not aid the decisional process. Accordingly, the Court will decide Defendant’s

motion “on the briefs.” See Local Rule 7.1(f)(2), U.S. District Court, Eastern

2

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 2 of 29 Pg ID 2134
District of Michigan. This opinion and order sets forth the Court’s rulings on this

motion.

II. ANALYSIS

A. The Standards Governing Defendant’s Motion

Through its present motion, Defendant seeks an award of summary

judgment in its favor on Plaintiff’s claim of patent infringement and Defendant’s

counterclaim of patent invalidity. Under the Federal Rule governing this motion,

summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as

to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

As the Supreme Court has explained, “the plain language of Rule 56[]

mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and

upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish

the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party

will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322,

106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552 (1986). In contrast, to the extent that Defendant seeks an

award of summary judgment in its favor on matters as to which it bears the burden

of proof — i.e., Defendant’s various challenges to the validity of the ‘824 patent

— Defendant’s “showing must be sufficient for the court to hold that no

3

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 3 of 29 Pg ID 2135
reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the moving party.” Calderone v.

United States, 799 F.2d 254, 259 (6th Cir. 1986) (internal quotation marks,

citation, and emphasis omitted). Regardless of the allocation of the burden of

proof, the central issue under Rule 56 is “whether the evidence presents a

sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so

one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2512 (1986).

In deciding a motion brought under Rule 56, the Court must view the

evidence “in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, giving that

party the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” Smith Wholesale Co. v. R.J.

Reynolds Tobacco Co., 477 F.3d 854, 861 (6th Cir. 2007). Yet, the nonmoving

party may not rely on bare allegations or denials, but instead must support a claim

of disputed facts by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including

depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or

declarations, stipulations . . . , admissions, interrogatory answers, or other

materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). Moreover, any supporting or opposing

affidavits “must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be

admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to

testify on the matters stated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). Finally, “[a] mere scintilla

4

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 4 of 29 Pg ID 2136
of evidence is insufficient” to withstand a summary judgment motion; rather,

“there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the nonmoving party.” Smith Wholesale, 477 F.3d at 861 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted).

B. The Accused Steel Treatment Process Used by Defendant Does Not

Meet Each of the Limitations of the Asserted Claims of the ‘824 Patent,

As Necessary To Sustain Plaintiff’s Patent Infringement Claim.

1. The Standards Governing Plaintiff’s Claim of Infringement

Turning first to Plaintiff’s claim of patent infringement, this Court’s inquiry

is governed by a two-step analytical framework. See Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.

v. United States Surgical Corp., 149 F.3d 1309, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lear

Automotive Dearborn, Inc. v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 528 F. Supp.2d 654, 659

(E.D. Mich. 2007). First, the pertinent claims of the ‘824 Patent must be construed

to determine their meaning and scope. See Ethicon Endo-Surgery, 149 F.3d at

1315. Next, the claims as construed must be compared to the accused process

practiced by Defendant. See Ethicon Endo-Surgery, 149 F.3d at 1315. As the

party alleging infringement, Plaintiff must demonstrate by a preponderance of the

evidence that Defendant’s accused process meets every limitation of one or more

claims of the ‘824 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 

Cross Medical Products, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293,

5

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 5 of 29 Pg ID 2137
1310 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The failure of the accused process to meet even “a single

limitation is sufficient to negate infringement of the claim.” Laitram Corp. v.

Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d 1533, 1535 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

The first step in the infringement analysis, claim construction, is a question

of law to be determined by the Court. See Ethicon Endo-Surgery, 149 F.3d at

1315; Lear Automotive, 528 F. Supp.2d at 660. The second step, however — i.e.,

“determining whether [Defendant’s accused process] infringes a properly

construed claim” of the ‘824 Patent — is a question of fact. Ethicon EndoSurgery, 149 F.3d at 1315. Nonetheless, an infringement inquiry is amenable to

resolution through a motion for summary judgment if no reasonable trier of fact

could find other than for the moving party. See Ethicon Endo-Surgery, 149 F.3d

at 1315.

2. The Record Establishes as a Matter of Law that Defendant’s

Accused Process Does Not Infringe the Asserted Claims of the

‘824 Patent.

Of the asserted claims of the ‘824 Patent, claims 1 and 17 are the only

independent claims. Each of these two claims requires that steel be “rapidly

heat[ed], within 5 seconds,” to a temperature of at least 1832 degrees Fahrenheit. 

(Defendant’s Motion, Ex. A-1, ‘824 Patent at 10:51-54, 11:47-50.) As its first

challenge to Plaintiff’s claim of patent infringement, Defendant contends that its

6

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 6 of 29 Pg ID 2138
accused process does not heat steel within 5 seconds, regardless of whether one

considers a preheating step in this process or just the time that the steel is heated

by a main induction coil. Defendant further asserts that Plaintiff is estopped from

invoking the doctrine of equivalents as a means of showing that Defendant’s

process meets this limitation of claims 1 and 17. It follows, in Defendant’s view,

that its process does not infringe either of these independent claims, or any of the

other asserted claims of the ‘824 Patent that depend from these two claims. The

Court agrees.

(a) Literal Infringement

Turning first to the question of literal infringement, Defendant states that its

accused process heats steel in two steps, using a preheat induction oven followed

by a main induction oven. In the preheating stage, steel passes through an oven

that features an induction preheat coil of 30 inches in length, heating the steel to a

temperature between 900 and 1040 degrees Fahrenheit. (See Defendant’s Motion,

Ex. A-2, 6/30/2015 Suppl. Interrogatory Responses at 6.) The steel then travels to

a main austenitizing coil that is 4 inches in length, which heats the steel to an

average temperature of 1785 degrees Fahrenheit (for low carbon steel plate) or

1558 degrees Fahrenheit (for high carbon steel plate). (See id. at 7, 10.) 

Throughout this time, the steel moves at a speed of 43 inches per minute (“IPM”). 

7

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 7 of 29 Pg ID 2139
(See id. at 6-7, 9-10.)

Accordingly, multiplying the line speed (43 IPM) times the length of the

induction preheat oven (30 inches) and the length of the main austenitizing coil (4

inches), Defendant contends that its accused process heats steel for approximately

41.8 seconds (in the preheat oven) plus approximately 5.6 seconds (in the main

oven), for a total heating time of approximately 47.4 seconds. (See id. at 6-7.)1

This total heating time is well in excess of the “rapid[] heating, within 5 seconds,”

disclosed in independent claims 1 and 17 of the ‘824 Patent. Defendant insists

that it is wholly appropriate to include the preheating step of its accused process,

where this process would not work without a preheat oven. (See Defendant’s

Motion, Ex. A-3, 5/14/2015 Nicholson Dep. at 258.) In any event, even

considering just the second step of Defendant’s process, in which steel is heated

with a main austenitizing coil, this 5.6-second heating stage of the accused process

still exceeds the heating “within 5 seconds” disclosed in the ‘824 Patent. It

follows, in Defendant’s view, that its accused process does not literally meet the

“rapid[] heating, within 5 seconds” limitation of claims 1 and 17 of the ‘824

1Defendant further observes that it takes an additional 55.8 seconds for steel to

travel the 40 inches between the preheat oven and the main austenitizing coil. (See id. at

10.) Thus, the total elapsed time for steel to be heated from its initial ambient

temperature to its final temperature is approximately 103.2 seconds.

8

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 8 of 29 Pg ID 2140
Patent.

In an effort to avoid this result, Plaintiff first asserts that Defendant’s

attempt to distinguish its accused process from the “within 5 seconds” limitation

of claims 1 and 17 rests upon an unstated reading of these claims that is

inconsistent with the plain language of the claims themselves. In particular, while

Defendant multiplies line speed times the length of the main heating coil to

conclude that steel spends 5.6 seconds in this coil, Plaintiff points out that the

pertinent claim language does not limit the amount of time steel spends in a

heating unit, but instead imposes a 5-second limit on the amount of time steel is

“heat[ed] . . . at a heating unit” to reach “a selected temperature above the

austenite conversion temperature.” (‘824 Patent at 10:51-53, 11:47-49 (emphasis

added).) Under Plaintiff’s preferred construction of this claim language, a process

in which steel remains in a heating unit for more than 5 seconds may still be

infringing, so long as the steel is “rapidly heat[ed], within 5 seconds, . . . to a

selected temperature above the austenite conversion temperature” that is “at least

1832

"

 F.” (Id. at 10:51-54, 11:47-50.)

To show that Defendant’s accused process performs this requisite “rapid[]

heating” within 5 seconds, even if steel might reside in the main heating coil for

more than 5 seconds, Plaintiff relies on the reports of its technical experts, Dr.

9

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 9 of 29 Pg ID 2141
Arnold Marder and Dr. Herman Nied.

2

 Upon analyzing Defendant’s accused

process, Dr. Nied opines that steel passing through Defendant’s main heating coil

“reach[es] its maximum temperature just before exit from the heater enclosure.” 

(Plaintiff’s Response, Ex. C, Nied 7/31/2015 Report at 6.) Dr. Marder, in turn,

reasons that based on Dr. Nied’s findings, “one can conclude that the [steel] plate

is at some temperature below [its maximum temperature of] 1929.9" F after being

in the coil for 0.6 seconds and is then heated from this temperature to 1929.9" in

under 5 seconds.” (Plaintiff’s Response, Ex. B, Marder 7/31/2015 Report at ¶

110.) Thus, Dr. Marder concludes that in Defendant’s accused process, “the steel

is rapidly heated within 5 seconds to a selected temperature of at least 1832

"

 F,”

(id. at ¶ 111), thereby literally meeting this element of claims 1 and 17 of the ‘824

Patent.

Notably absent from Plaintiff’s argument on this point, however, is any

suggested basis in the record for characterizing the main heating coil in

Defendant’s accused process as (i) heating steel to some temperature below the

asserted maximum temperature of 1929

" F, and then (ii) “rapidly heating” this

2As noted in its reply in support of its motion, Defendant maintains that Plaintiff

should be precluded from relying on the expert reports of Dr. Marder and Dr. Nied, on the

ground that these reports were untimely served after the close of discovery. In a recent

order, however, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to strike these expert reports. (See

9/30/2016 Order at 3-4.)

10

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 10 of 29 Pg ID 2142
steel from its intermediate temperature to its maximum temperature shortly before

it exits the heating coil. To be sure — and as discussed in greater detail

immediately below — the pertinent language of the ‘824 Patent does not

necessarily demand that steel be “rapidly heat[ed], within 5 seconds,” all the way

from its initial ambient temperature to its maximum temperature of at least 1832

"

F. Nonetheless, Plaintiff and its experts must identify some evidentiary basis for

segmenting the heating performed by Defendant’s main austenitizing coil into (i) a

non-rapid phase that brings the steel to some point below its maximum

temperature, followed by (ii) a rapid heating phase that brings the steel to its

maximum temperature within 5 seconds. 

Although Dr. Marder proposes in his report that Defendant’s process can be

viewed in this manner — i.e., with steel reaching “some temperature below” its

maximum “after being in the [main heating] coil for 0.6 seconds” and then being

rapidly “heated from this temperature to” its maximum temperature during its

remaining 5 seconds within the coil, (Marder 7/31/2015 Report at ¶¶ 110-11) —

nothing in this report (or elsewhere in the record) supports Dr. Marder’s apparent

premise that Defendant’s main austenitizing coil heats steel differently in the first

0.6 seconds than in the remaining 5 seconds, with only the latter phase qualifying

as “rapid” heating. Rather, Dr. Marder’s segregation of the first 0.6 seconds of

11

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 11 of 29 Pg ID 2143
this heating process seems wholly arbitrary, and designed to ensure that the

remaining, purportedly “rapid” portion of this process lasts 5 seconds or less. 

Accordingly, while the Court recognizes that the length of time steel remains in

Defendant’s main heating coil is not, by itself, determinative of the time period

within which the steel is rapidly heated to its final temperature, the Court finds no

basis in the record for concluding that Defendant’s main heating coil “rapidly

heat[s]” steel within 5 seconds to a temperature in excess of 1832

"

 F, as required

to literally meet this element of independent claims 1 and 17 of the ‘824 Patent.

Next, Plaintiff takes issue with Defendant’s contention that the heating time

of its accused process should include the approximately 41.8 seconds that steel is

heated in an induction preheat oven. As Plaintiff observes, claim 5 of the ‘824

Patent depends from claim 1, and includes the additional limitation of “a preheating step to heat the steel to a temperature below the austenitic conversion

temperature.” (‘824 Patent at 11:3-5.) It follows, in Plaintiff’s view, that the

“rapid[] heating[] within 5 seconds” language of claim 1 cannot be construed as

requiring that steel be heated from its ambient temperature to its maximum

temperature within 5 seconds, because this would not allow for the preheating step

in claim 5 that heats steel to a point above its ambient temperature but below the

austenitic conversion temperature. See Wright Medical Technology, Inc. v.

12

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 12 of 29 Pg ID 2144
Osteonics Corp., 122 F.3d 1440, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (emphasizing that a court

“must not interpret an independent claim in a way that is inconsistent with a claim

which depends from it”). Yet, even accepting that Defendant cannot rely on the

41.8 preheating phase of its accused process to establish that this process does not

“rapidly heat[]” steel “within 5 seconds,” Defendant correctly observes that the

5.6-second period that steel is heated in its main austenitizing coil suffices, by

itself, to show that its process does not literally meet the limitation of rapid heating

within 5 seconds. Thus, the Court need not decide whether the preheating phase

of Defendant’s accused process should or should not count toward the total time

that this process “rapidly heat[s]” steel.

Finally, Plaintiff challenges the factual basis for Defendant’s claim that the

length of its main heating cycle invariably exceeds 5 seconds. First, while

Defendant’s calculation of a 5.6-second heating time rests on the premise that its

line operates at a consistent speed of 43 inches per minute, Plaintiff points to

evidence that purportedly reveals an “appreciable variance” in this line speed

during the operation of Defendant’s process. (Plaintiff’s Response Br. at 9 (citing

Plaintiff’s Response, Ex. A-3 (entry pinch roller data from 5/19/2015 run); Ex. A13

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 13 of 29 Pg ID 2145
4 (exit pinch roller data from 5/19/2015 run)).)3

 As Defendant’s expert observes

without contradiction, however, the variances identified by Plaintiff reflect

second-to-second fluctuations in entry and exit roller speeds that are “to be

expected in any mechanical system,” and these fluctuating roller speeds

demonstrate that Defendant’s system “is imparting the energy necessary to make

sure that the steel is always moving at 43 inches per minute.” (Defendant’s Reply,

Ex. B, Putatunda 9/1/2015 Rebuttal Report at ¶ 81.) Plaintiff has failed to produce

any expert opinion or other evidence that would support a different reading of this

run data.

 Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff suggests that Defendant’s

measurement of its line speed might be inaccurate, and that error rates as small as

4 percent purportedly would suffice to raise an issue of fact as to whether

Defendant’s main austenitizing coil heats steel within 5 seconds, (see Plaintiff’s

Response Br. at 10 n.3), Defendant correctly observes that this challenge rests

wholly upon speculation, without any evidentiary basis for concluding that

Defendant’s measurements and readings suffer from any such inaccuracies. 

3Plaintiff also complains that it was not able to observe Defendant’s accused

process in actual operation, nor gain access to the entire archive of data captured during

Defendant’s operation of this process. The Court addressed these matters in orders issued

on July 15 and November 19, 2015, and no further discussion is warranted here. 

14

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 14 of 29 Pg ID 2146
Similarly, while Plaintiff points to the testimony of Defendant’s representative,

Brent Nicholson, that 43 IPM is the “intended” rather than actual speed of

Defendant’s line, (Plaintiff’s Response, Ex. A-5, Nicholson Dep. at 93), nothing in

the record reflects any significant deviation from the intended 43 IPM line speed

that would result in a heating time of 5 seconds or less. To the contrary, Mr.

Nicholson testified that even minor changes in line speed, on the order of “1000s

of an inch per minute,” will cause the line to shut down, so that it may safely be

assumed that the actual line speed matches the intended speed. (Id. at 93-94.) 

Plaintiff also points to data from runs of Defendant’s accused process in

early April of 2015, disclosing line speeds of 55 or 60 IPM. (See Plaintiff’s

Response, Ex. A-6, Run Sheets.)4 Based on this data, Plaintiff surmises that on at

least a few occasions, Defendant evidently operated its line “with main heating

cycle times of less than 5 seconds.” (Plaintiff’s Response Br. at 10.) Accordingly,

even if Defendant’s accused process ordinarily does not meet the claim limitation

of rapid heating “within 5 seconds,” Plaintiff insists that it may pursue a claim of

infringement based on the handful of instances where Defendant’s process did

4Although Plaintiff states that it has produced evidence of “5 runs” with line

speeds of 55 or 60 IPM, (Plaintiff’s Response Br. at 10), the evidentiary record reflects

only three such runs — one each on April 1, 2, and 8, 2015 — with Plaintiff having

produced duplicate run sheets for two of these runs.

15

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 15 of 29 Pg ID 2147
satisfy this limitation, in light of the “principle that an accused product that

sometimes, but not always, embodies a claimed method nonetheless infringes.” 

Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d

615, 622-23 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

As Defendant points out in response, however, Plaintiff never identified this

theory of infringement at any point during discovery, despite having been given

the relevant run data on April 16, 2015, well before the close of discovery, (see

Defendant’s Reply, Ex. A, Wiggins 9/10/2015 Decl. at ¶ 1), and despite having

supplemented its theories of infringement multiple times during discovery, (see

Defendant’s Motion, Ex. A-5, Third Supplemental Discovery Responses at 6,

Third Supplemental Preliminary Claim Chart at 2-3). In light of Plaintiff’s failure

to timely disclose this theory at a point when Defendant could have explored it in

discovery, the Court declines to consider Plaintiff’s claim of infringement arising

from the handful of occasions when Defendant ran its accused process at line

speeds greater than 43 IPM. See O2 Micro International Ltd. v. Monolithic Power

Systems, Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (finding that the district court

in that case did not abuse its discretion by denying leave for the plaintiff to amend

its infringement contentions after the deadline for doing so).

In any event, if Plaintiff had pursued this matter in discovery, Defendant

16

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 16 of 29 Pg ID 2148
states without contradiction that Plaintiff would have learned that the April 2015

runs at issue were not used to make commercial product, but instead were

“experimental runs where [Defendant was] trying to find a way to run 36 inch

wide product” rather than its usual 24-inch material. (Defendant’s Reply, Ex. C,

Nicholson 9/10/2015 Decl. at ¶¶ 6-7.) Defendant further states, again without

contradiction, that these test runs “did not work,” that it “immediately switched

back to 43 IPM to make commercial product,” and that it has “run the line at that

speed ever since.” (Id. at ¶ 7.) As the Federal Circuit has explained, “tests of an

accused device under unusual conditions are not necessarily relevant to an

infringement analysis.” Hilgraeve Corp. v. Symantec Corp., 265 F.3d 1336, 1343

(Fed. Cir. 2001); see also High Tech Medical Instrumentation, Inc. v. New Image

Industries, Inc., 49 F.3d 1551, 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that an accused

device that does not infringe under its intended configuration does not become

infringing by being altered into an infringing configuration under unusual

circumstances). Finally, even if Defendant’s limited test runs of its accused

process at line speeds greater than 43 IPM were deemed infringing, Defendant

correctly points out that Plaintiff could not recover the royalties it seeks as its

principal form of damages, given that these runs did not (and were not intended to)

result in any commercial product that Defendant could offer for sale. Accordingly,

17

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 17 of 29 Pg ID 2149
the Court concludes as a matter of law that Defendant’s accused process does not

literally infringe the asserted claims of the ‘824 Patent.

5

 

(b) Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents

Although Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant’s accused process literally

meets each limitation of the asserted claims of the ‘824 Patent, it may still prevail

on its claim of infringement by resort to the doctrine of equivalents. “Under this

doctrine, a product or process that does not literally infringe upon the express

terms of a patent claim may nonetheless be found to infringe if there is

‘equivalence’ between the elements of the accused product or process and the

claimed elements of the patented invention.” Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton

Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 21, 117 S. Ct. 1040, 1045 (1997). While

“[i]nfringement under the doctrine of equivalents is a question of fact,” Kraft

Foods, Inc. v. International Trading Co., 203 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2000),

Defendant argues that the principle known as prosecution history estoppel

precludes Plaintiff from establishing an equivalence between Defendant’s 5.6-

second main heating cycle and the claim limitation of “rapid[] heating[] within 5

5

In light of the Court’s determination that Defendant’s accused process does not

literally meet the “rapid[] heating[] within 5 seconds” limitation of the asserted claims of

the ‘824 Patent, it need not consider whether, as Defendant maintains, the accused

process also fails to meet the “drawing the steel” limitation of these claims.

18

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 18 of 29 Pg ID 2150
seconds.” As discussed below, the Court agrees.

In Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S.

722, 122 S. Ct. 1831 (2002), the Supreme Court described in detail the purpose

and scope of prosecution history estoppel:

Prosecution history estoppel requires that the claims of a patent

be interpreted in light of the proceedings in the [Patent and

Trademark Office (“PTO”)] during the application process. Estoppel

is a rule of patent construction that ensures that claims are interpreted

by reference to those that have been cancelled or rejected. The

doctrine of equivalents allows the patentee to claim those

insubstantial alterations that were not captured in drafting the original

patent claim but which could be created through trivial changes. 

When, however, the patentee originally claimed the subject matter

alleged to infringe but then narrowed the claim in response to a

rejection, he may not argue that the surrendered territory comprised

unforeseen subject matter that should be deemed equivalent to the

literal claims of the issued patent. On the contrary, by the amendment

the patentee recognized and emphasized the difference between the

two phrases, and the difference which the patentee thus disclaimed

must be regarded as material.

A rejection indicates that the patent examiner does not believe

the original claim could be patented. While the patentee has the right

to appeal, his decision to forgo an appeal and submit an amended

claim is taken as a concession that the invention as patented does not

reach as far as the original claim. Were it otherwise, the inventor

might avoid the PTO’s gatekeeping role and seek to recapture in an

infringement action the very subject matter surrendered as a condition

of receiving the patent.

535 U.S. at 733-34, 122 S. Ct. at 1838-39 (internal quotation marks, alterations,

and citations omitted). Accordingly, prosecution history estoppel is triggered in

19

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 19 of 29 Pg ID 2151
this case if Plaintiff seeks to “recaptur[e] under the doctrine of equivalents subject

matter [it] surrendered during prosecution to obtain” the ‘824 Patent. Cross

Medical Products, 480 F.3d at 1341.

In seeking to invoke this principle here, Defendant first observes that

independent claims 1 and 17 of the ‘824 Patent, as originally drafted, called for

“heating the [steel] under tension at a heating unit to a selected temperature above

the austenite conversion temperature,” (Defendant’s Motion, Ex. A-6, ‘824 Patent

Prosecution History at BA 1307, BA 1309),6

 without specifying any time limit (5

seconds or otherwise) for this heating. These claims were rejected as unpatentable

in light of U.S. Patent No. 3,964,938 to Tolliver et al. (the “ Tolliver” prior art

reference). (See ‘824 Patent Prosecution History at BA 1108.) The patent

applicant initially sought to overcome this rejection by contending that the heating

in the claimed invention “takes place within several seconds,” in contrast to the

language in Tolliver stating that heating occurs “in a relatively short amount of

time,” (id. at BA 1090), but the patent examiner disagreed, noting that “the claims

as written make no mention of any heating time short, long, or otherwise,” (id. at

BA 1065). In response, the applicant amended the claims to incorporate their

6As noted by Defendant, the present claim 17 of the ‘824 Patent was originally

filed as claim 18.

20

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 20 of 29 Pg ID 2152
present language — i.e., the limitation that steel is “rapidly heat[ed], within 5

seconds,” (id. at BA 1032, BA 1035) — explaining that these amendments “recite

the limitation of rapid heating and immediate rapid cooling, thereby overcoming

the rejection based on the Tolliver, et al. reference,” and that “such extremely

rapid heating and immediate rapid cooling produces different microstructures in

the resulting alloy that is not evident in the cited references,” (id. at BA 1045).

In Defendant’s view, these amendments to independent claims 1 and 17

operated to “narrow[] the scope of the claimed process from an indefinite time for

heating to heating specifically within 5 seconds.” (Defendant’s Motion, Br. in

Support at 7.) Defendant further asserts that these amendments were “plainly

made for purposes of patentability as [they were] made directly in response to a

rejection from the examiner based on the prior art.” (Id.) It follows, according to

Defendant, that because the patent applicant explicitly surrendered the subject

matter of heating for more than 5 seconds in order to secure the ‘824 Patent,

Plaintiff should be estopped from trying to reclaim this surrendered territory

through the application of the doctrine of equivalents.

In response, Plaintiff concedes that the amendments in question “narrowed

the scope of the claims and [were] made for the purpose[] of patentability to

overcome” the Tolliver prior art reference. (Plaintiff’s Response Br. at 13.) 

21

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 21 of 29 Pg ID 2153
Plaintiff further acknowledges that under the Supreme Court’s decision in Festo,

these circumstances give rise to a “presumption” that Plaintiff may not invoke the

doctrine of equivalents in order to overcome the lack of literal infringement of the

“rapid[] heating, within 5 seconds” limitation of claims 1 and 17 of the ‘824

Patent. (Id.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff correctly observes that it may rebut this

presumption “by showing that the alleged equivalent was unforeseeable at the time

the amendment was made, that the alleged equivalent was tangential to the

purpose of the amendment, or that there was some other reason suggesting that the

patentee could not reasonably be expected to have described the insubstantial

substitute in question.” Chimie v. PPG Industries Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 1382 (Fed.

Cir. 2005). In this case, Plaintiff pursues the second and third avenues for

rebutting the presumption recognized in Festo.

First, Plaintiff maintains that the purpose of the amendments at issue was to

“quantitatively describe” the heating rate of the claimed invention, and thereby

distinguish this invention from a prior art reference (Tolliver) that “use[d] only

qualitative terms such as ‘rapidly’ and ‘relatively short’ to describe the heating

rate.” (Plaintiff’s Response Br. at 14.)7 Because the amendments were not made

7As Defendant points out, Plaintiff’s identification of the reason for the

amendments is based solely on the assertions of counsel, and is unsupported by citation to

the pertinent record. 

22

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 22 of 29 Pg ID 2154
“to avoid prior art disclosing a particular heating rate,” (id.), Plaintiff suggests that

it should not be precluded from demonstrating an equivalence between heating

“within 5 seconds” and the accused product’s heating time of 5.6 seconds, where

this difference between two specified heating times purportedly bears only a

tangential relationship to the reason for amending the claims.

As emphasized by the Federal Circuit, however, “the tangential relation

criterion for overcoming the Festo presumption [of prosecution history estoppel] is

very narrow.” Cross Medical Products, 480 F.3d at 1342. More to the point, “an

amendment made to avoid prior art that contains the equivalent in question is not

tangential.” Chimie, 402 F.3d at 1383 (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). Such is the case here, where the prosecution history for the ‘824 Patent

reveals that the applicant included the limitation of “rapid[] heating, within 5

seconds” in order to avoid the requirement in the Tolliver prior art reference that

heating occurs “in a relatively short amount of time.” (‘824 Patent Prosecution

History at BA 1090.)

Because this amendment abandoned rapid heating in excess of 5 seconds,

the claimed equivalent here — namely, the heating time of approximately 5.6

seconds in Defendant’s accused process — falls squarely within the territory

relinquished in order to avoid Tolliver. This is true even though Tolliver does not

23

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 23 of 29 Pg ID 2155
express its heating time in explicit quantitative terms. All that matters is (i) that

the applicant for the ‘824 Patent did choose to quantify the heating time for the

claimed invention in order to avoid the Tolliver prior art reference, and (ii) that by

so doing, the applicant relinquished heating times in excess of this specified value. 

As a matter of law, then, this amendment bears a direct, and not a tangential,

relationship to the 5.6-second heating time in Defendant’s accused process that

Plaintiff seeks to claim as equivalent, and it follows that Plaintiff cannot invoke

the “tangential relation” exception to overcome the Festo presumption of

prosecution history estoppel.

Next, Plaintiff endeavors to appeal to the “catch-all” exception to the

presumption recognized in Festo, contending that there was “some other reason”

why the applicant for the ‘824 Patent “could not reasonably be expected to have

described the insubstantial substitute” purportedly reflected in Defendant’s

accused product. Chimie, 402 F.3d at 1382. Specifically, Plaintiff notes that two

figures accompanying the ‘824 Patent appear to disclose heating times of about 2

and 5 seconds, and it reasons that if the applicant had sought to claim a heating

time in excess of 5 seconds, this amendment likely would have been rejected. 

This, in Plaintiff’s view, provides the requisite “other reason” why the applicant

could not have claimed the allegedly equivalent heating time of 5.6 seconds.

24

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 24 of 29 Pg ID 2156
Once again, however, Defendant notes as a threshold matter that the “some

other reason” exception to Festo’s presumption of prosecution history estoppel is

“a narrow one.” Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 344

F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2003).8

 The “other reason” identified by Plaintiff

“must be such that the patentee could not reasonably be expected to write a claim

to encompass the equivalent, such as a shortcoming of language.” Amgen Inc. v.

Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 457 F.3d 1293, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted). Moreover, where the alleged equivalent is

“presen[t] in the prior art cited against the patentee during prosecution, there can

be no other reason the patentee could not have described the substitute in

question.” Pioneer Magnetics, Inc. v. Micro Linear Corp., 330 F.3d 1352, 1357

(Fed. Cir. 2003).

These principles defeat Plaintiff’s appeal to the “some other reason”

exception. The claims of the ‘824 Patent as originally drafted specified only

“heating . . . to a selected temperature above the austenite conversion

temperature,” (‘824 Patent Prosecution History at BA 1307, BA 1309), and thus

would have covered the alleged equivalent of 5.6 seconds (and, presumably, far

8

Indeed, Defendant observes that “of the 34 Federal Circuit cases that address this

exception, none applied it.” (Defendant’s Reply Br. at 8.)

25

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 25 of 29 Pg ID 2157
lengthier heating times). Although the applicant elected to avoid the Tolliver prior

art reference by specifying a heating time of 5 seconds or less, no “shortcoming of

language” dictated this course of action; rather, just as Tolliver recites a time limit

in qualitative terms, as a “relatively short amount of time,” the applicant for the

‘824 Patent presumably could have avoided this prior art reference through a

qualitative description of heating time that arguably continued to cover the alleged

equivalent of 5.6 seconds. In addition — and as discussed earlier — the Tolliver

prior art reference, with its limitation to heating within “a relatively short amount

of time,” encompasses the allegedly equivalent 5.6-second heating time of

Defendant’s accused process, and the Federal Circuit has held under these

circumstances that “there can be no other reason the patentee could not have

described the substitute in question.” Pioneer Magnetics, 330 F.3d at 1357.

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to rebut the Festo presumption that

prosecution history estoppel applies here. It follows that Plaintiff cannot invoke

the doctrine of equivalents as a means of demonstrating that Defendant’s accused

process infringes the ‘824 Patent. In light of the Court’s earlier conclusion that

Defendant’s accused process does not literally infringe this patent, Defendant is

entitled to an award of summary judgment in its favor as to its non-infringement of

the asserted claims of the ‘824 Patent.

26

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 26 of 29 Pg ID 2158
C. Exercising the Discretion Conferred Under the Declaratory Judgment

Act, the Court Elects Not to Address Defendant’s Challenges to the

Validity of the ‘824 Patent.

Apart from seeking a declaration that its accused process does not infringe

the ‘824 Patent, Defendant also is pursuing a counterclaim challenging the validity

of this patent on a number of grounds. Likewise, Defendant requests in the

present motion that summary judgment be awarded in its favor on this

counterclaim of patent invalidity. As discussed briefly below, however, the Court

chooses not to address this counterclaim, but instead will dismiss it without

prejudice.

Despite the Court’s determination as a matter of law that Defendant’s

accused process does not infringe the ‘824 Patent, Defendant’s counterclaim of

patent invalidity remains in controversy and supports the Court’s continued

exercise of jurisdiction. See Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 355 F.3d

1361, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Nonetheless, because Defendant’s remaining

counterclaim seeks a declaration of invalidity, this Court has discretion under the

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), to decide whether to address this

claim for declaratory relief or instead dismiss the claim without prejudice. See

MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 136, 127 S. Ct. 764, 776

(2007) (citing the discretionary language in § 2201(a) that a federal court “may

27

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 27 of 29 Pg ID 2159
declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party”); see also

Liquid Dynamics, 355 F.3d at 1370-71; Lear Automotive, 528 F. Supp.2d at 674.

Under the circumstances presented here, the Court elects not to address

Defendant’s counterclaim seeking a declaration of patent invalidity. First and

foremost, the ‘824 Patent is presumed valid, see 35 U.S.C. § 282, and Defendant

bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the patent is

invalid, see Creative Compounds, LLC v. Starmark Laboratories, 651 F.3d 1303,

1309-10 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Upon reviewing Defendant’s motion, it is not evident

that Defendant can meet this heightened burden, and the Court’s uncertainty on

this point militates against the exercise of the Court’s discretionary authority under

the Declaratory Judgment Act. See, e.g., Phonometrics, Inc. v. Northern Telecom

Inc., 133 F.3d 1459, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Split Pivot, Inc. v. Trek Bicycle Corp.,

987 F. Supp.2d 838, 882 (W.D. Wis. 2013), aff’d, No. 2014-1241, 585 F. App’x

1011 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2014). In addition, the Court’s resolution of Plaintiff’s

claim of infringement in Defendant’s favor ensures that Defendant will not face

any further claims that its accused process infringes the ‘824 Patent. See WellsGardner Electronics Corp. v. C. Ceronix, Inc., No. 10-C-2536, 2011 WL

1467182, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 2011) (citing the court’s finding of noninfringement as a basis for declining to consider a request for a declaration of

28

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 28 of 29 Pg ID 2160
invalidity); see also Phonometrics, 133 F.3d at 1468 (recognizing a district court’s

“discretion to dismiss a counterclaim alleging that a patent is invalid . . . where it

finds no infringement”). Accordingly, the Court declines to address Defendant’s

counterclaim of patent invalidity, but instead will dismiss this counterclaim

without prejudice.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion

for summary judgment (docket #48) is GRANTED IN PART, to the extent that

Defendant seeks an award of summary judgment in its favor as to its accused

product’s non-infringement of the asserted claims of the ‘824 Patent. In all other

respects, Defendant’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

s/Gerald E. Rosen 

United States District Judge

Dated: October 31, 2016

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties

and/or counsel of record on October 31, 2016, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5135

29

2:14-cv-13575-DPH-DRG Doc # 83 Filed 10/31/16 Pg 29 of 29 Pg ID 2161