Opinion ID: 209115
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claim 14 of the '826 patentthe doctrine of equivalents

Text: We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Hilgraeve Corp. v. McAfee Assocs., Inc., 224 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed.Cir.2000). Summary judgment is proper only if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Furthermore, a determination of noninfringement, either literal or under the doctrine of equivalents, is a question of fact. IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1429 (Fed.Cir. 2000). Thus, on appeal from a grant of summary judgment of noninfringement, we must 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. A finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents requires a showing that the difference between the claimed invention and the accused product was insubstantial. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co., 339 U.S. 605, 608, 70 S.Ct. 854, 94 L.Ed. 1097 (1950). One way of doing so is by showing on a limitation by limitation basis that the accused product performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way with substantially the same result as each claim limitation of the patented product. See Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 39-40, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146 (1997). The function-way-result test is particularly suitable for analyzing the equivalence of mechanical devices, such as the ones at issue here. Id. at 39, 117 S.Ct. 1040. Crown's appeal focuses on the annular reinforcing bead element of claim 14 of the '826 patent. Claim 14 depends from independent claim 13. [5] The claims recite: 13. A metal can end for use in packaging beverages under pressure and adapted to be joined to a can body by a seaming process so as to form a double seam therewith using a rotatable chuck comprising first and second circumferentially extending walls, said first and second chuck walls forming a juncture there between, said can end comprising; a peripheral cover hook, said peripheral cover hook comprising a seaming panel adapted to be formed into a portion of said double seam during said seaming operation; a central panel; a wall extending inwardly and downwardly from said cover hook, a first portion of said wall extending from said cover hook to a first point on said wall, said first wall portion adapted to be deformed during said seaming operation so as to be bent upwardly around said juncture of said chuck walls at said first point on said wall, a second portion of said wall extending from said first point to a second point forming a lowermost end of said wall, a line extending between said first and second points being inclined to an axis perpendicular to said central panel at an angle of between 30° and 60°. 14. The end according to claim 13, further comprising an annular reinforcing bead [6] connected to said wall at said second point, said annular reinforcing bead connecting said wall to said central panel. Figure 4 of the '826 patent shows an embodiment of the can top according to the invention. [7] The anti-peaking bead of figure 4which appears as a groove covering the outer circumference of the can topis identified by reference numeral 25. Once a can body is filled, a can top is placed on top of the body, where it is secured in place. The can top is then sealedor seamedto the can body as shown in figures 6 and 7: After the can top is secured in place, a first operation roll is used to deform the outside of the can, sandwiching the edges of the can end and the can body together. Following this operation, a second operation roll is used to again deform the can such that it forms a secure seal. The Rexam End accused of infringement is shown below: Crown asserts that the fold of the Rexam endshown in the enlarged viewis the equivalent of the annular bead of claim 14. With regard to the grant of summary judgment of noninfringement under the doctrine of equivalents in this case, the parties dispute only one issuewhether there is a material issue of fact regarding the function(s) of the annular reinforcing bead element of claim 14 of the '826 patent. Crown's expert, Mr. Martin Higham, opined that the Rexam end infringed claim 14 under the doctrine of equivalents and performed a detailed analysis under the function-way-result test. Mr. Higham further opined that [t]he function of the annular reinforcing bead of the claims is to increase the pressure resistance of a sealed-on can end, and that [t]he function of the fold of the Rexam end is identical to the function of the annular reinforcing bead in the [patent]. Once Mr. Higham determined that the fold of the Rexam end performed the same function as the annular reinforcing bead of claim 14, he went on to analyze the way and result prongs of the test. [8] Based on his analysis, Mr. Higham concluded that the Rexam end is not substantially different from its corresponding elements in the ['826 patent]. Rexam submitted its own expert report by Edmund Gillest. In responding to the analysis and conclusion in Mr. Higham's expert report, Mr. Gillest conceded that: Mr. Higham says that the function of the conventional anti-peaking bead is to increase the pressure resistance of a seamed-on can end and that the result of the conventional anti-peaking bead performing that function would be to decrease the amount of metal required to maintain industry standard pressure performance, as compared to similar ends that did not have a conventional anti-peaking bead. I agree that one of ordinary skill in the art of can end design and/or manufacture would view those as the function of and result of using the conventional anti-peaking bead. Mr. Gillest then went on to argue that there was no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents based only on his analysis of the way prong of the test. Although both parties' experts agreed that the function of the annular reinforcing bead was to increase the pressure resistance of a sealed-on can end, Rexam suggested there were two additional functions in its brief in support of its motion for summary judgment. Rexam argued that the claimed bead also performed the functions of (1) supporting the central panel of the can, and (2) providing an opening into which a seaming chuck can enter from above. Crown addressed these new arguments in its opposition brief by simply stating that the declaration of Crown's expert, Mr. Higham, confirms that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to infringement by equivalents that precludes summary judgment. Crown did not provide a detailed argument or present additional evidence in response to these newly alleged functions, but instead referenced its expert report and asserted that Mr. Higham's evidence of equivalence precludes summary judgment of noninfringement. [9] Based on Rexam's arguments regarding the two additional functions, the district court granted summary judgment stating: Crown neither counters Rexam's evidence concerning the functions of supporting the central panel and providing an opening from above which a seaming chuck enters nor makes an argument that these are not key functions of the annular reinforcing bead. Moreover, Higham's report does not address these functions. Because there is no evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on these points, Rexam is entitled to summary judgment that the fold of the Rexam End does not meet the annular reinforcing bead limitation of claim 14 of the '826 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. First, we note that Rexam offered only attorney argument as to these two additional functions of the annular reinforcing bead, but no actual evidence. Rexam's own expert discussed only the single function of increasing the pressure resistance of a seamed-on can end. Second, we interpret Crown's response, which pointed to its expert report, as sufficient to create a material issue of fact. Crown's evidence, that the annular reinforcing bead has only one function, is in direct contrast with Rexam's view that the annular reinforcing bead performs multiple functions. Crown's expert reviewed claim 14 in light of the specification and as one of ordinary skill in the art concluded that the annular reinforcing bead performed only one function. It is not the case that Crown failed to respond to an argument or even that it failed to respond with any evidence. While Crown could have made this clearer to the district court by addressing the issue squarely or restating Mr. Higham's analysis, its decision to refer to the evidence already before the court should not be fatal. Crown's expert's opinion was part of the recordas was Rexam's expert's opinion. Because Crown provided evidence in support of its position that the annular reinforcing bead of claim 14 of the '826 patent had only one function, and because we must resolve any reasonable factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, we conclude that there is a material issue of fact regarding the function of the claimed bead. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement.