Opinion ID: 212477
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Distinguishing the VT-1 and VT-2 Products

Text: Where a patent is granted in a field of invention abundant with prior art, a patentee will sometimes find it difficult to establish that his patent is broad enough to cover an accused product, yet narrow enough to evade the strictures of a crowded art field. Augustine Med., Inc. v. Gaymar Indus., Inc., 181 F.3d 1291, 1301 (Fed.Cir.1999). As the district court correctly recognized, Old Reliable faced significant challenges in its effort to establish that the '950 patent was not anticipated by the VT-2 product, but was nonetheless infringed by the VT-1 product. See Invalidity Decision, 609 F.Supp.2d at 746-48. Independent claim 1 of the '950 patent requires a main portion of solid insulating material and a top portion [comprised of] a plurality of spaced blocks that is above the insulation layer and integral therewith. '950 patent, col.7 l.28-col.8 l.2. In the prior art VT-2 product, the foam insulation layer is separated from the spaced blocks by a layer of OSB. In the accused VT-1 product, by contrast, the foam insulation layer is separated from the spaced blocks by a layer of felt facing. Old Reliable argued that the VT-2 did not anticipate the '950 patent because, due to the layer of OSB between the insulation and the spaced blocks, the blocks were not integral with the main portion of insulating material as required by the asserted claims. In order to establish infringement, however, Old Reliable argued that in the VT-1 product the spaced blocks were integral with the main portion of insulating material, notwithstanding the fact that the blocks were separated from the insulating material by a layer of felt facing. The district court concluded that Old Reliable was trying to have it both ways in order to preserve its infringement claim against [the VT-1 product] and avoid invalidating the '950 Patent based on the prior art of [the VT-2 product]. Invalidity Decision, 609 F.Supp.2d at 748. Rejecting what it perceived as the inconsistent positions taken by Old Reliable, the court determined that the spaced blocks were integral with the insulation layer in both the VT-1 and the VT-2 products. Id. We cannot agree, however, that Old Reliable's argument that the spaced blocks were integral with the main portion of insulating material in the VT-1, but not in the VT-2, was objectively meritless. See Aspex Eyewear Inc. v. Clariti Eyewear, Inc., 605 F.3d 1305, 1315 (Fed.Cir.2010) (explaining that [d]efeat of a litigation position, even on summary judgment, does not warrant an automatic finding that the suit was objectively baseless). There was nothing frivolous or inherently implausible about Old Reliable's assertion that, from a physical standpoint, separating the insulation from the spaced blocks by a thin layer of felt facing is different than separating the insulation from the blocks with a bulky layer of OSB. As Old Reliable explained, unlike felt facing, which is flexible, the OSB is inflexible and a separate structural component that does not conform to and form part of the insulating material. Invalidity Decision, 609 F.Supp.2d at 747 (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, Cornell's own Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) indicated that the felt facer was part of the polyisocyanurate foam insulation, but that the OSB was a separate structural component from the insulation layer. [3] Furthermore, although Cornell had been selling its VT-2 product for several years before it introduced the VT-1, the VT-1 quickly surpassed the VT-2 in terms of sales. The undisputed commercial success of the VT-1 provided a legitimate basis for Old Reliable's assertion that secondary considerations weighed against any finding that the '950 patent was invalid over the prior art. See Geo M. Martin Co. v. Alliance Mach. Sys. Int'l LLC, 618 F.3d 1294, 1304 (Fed.Cir.2010) (Secondary considerations of non-obviousness must be considered when present.).