Opinion ID: 1042145
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Quenching

Text: Claim 15 requires an “extruded and quenched” crystalline fluoropolymer tube. Valois disputes the construction of “quenched” and the district court’s finding that Valois’s “New” tube is quenched. 6
Claim construction is a question of law reviewed de novo. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). The words of the claim ‘‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,’’ which ‘‘is the meaning that term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.’’ Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Below, Valois and MWV submitted competing con- structions for the term “quenched.” Valois proposed “a process by which a plastic tube is subjected to rapid cooling by immersion into a cooling liquid” and MWV proposed “rapidly cooled.” Claim Op., 807 F. Supp. 2d at 541. The district court adopted MWV’s construction, finding that “rapidly cooled” is consistent with the ordi- 6 Valois conceded that the water-quenched “Old” tube infringes the ’132 patent. Summ. J. Op., 809 F. Supp. 2d at 471. 12 MEADWESTVACO CORPORATION v. REXAM BEAUTY nary meaning of quenched and that nothing in the patents limited the cooling medium to a liquid instead of air. Id. Valois now argues that the district court should have construed quenching as “rapid cooling by immersion in a cooling medium.” Valois Br. 51. 7 As noted by the district court at the claim construction stage, “[t]he term ‘immersion’ is immaterial because the tube can either be immersed in either air or water; the cooling medium restriction is the material argument set forth by Valois.” Claim Op. at 541 n.1. We agree with the district court that “quenching” is not limited to “rapid cooling by immersion into a cooling liquid” but encompasses rapid cooling “by any cooling medium.” Id. at 541. Despite Valois’s protests, there is no dispute that the “New” tube is “immersed” in air; Valois’s dispute is over whether the air in the tank is a “cooling medium,” an issue relevant to infringement, not claim construction. We therefore affirm the court’s construction of “quenched” as “rapidly cooled.”
On appeal from a bench trial, this court reviews the district court’s conclusions of law de novo and findings of fact for clear error. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2000). A determination of infringement, whether literal or under the doctrine of equivalents, is a question of fact and is 7 On appeal, Valois also argues that the district court “redefined” the term “quenched” post-trial. Valois Br. 53. We are not persuaded. The court was merely comparing different examples of quenching in its infringement analysis and providing further support of its decision to credit MWV’s expert over Valois’s, not adopting a new construction of the term “quenched.” See Trial Op. at 46. MEADWESTVACO CORPORATION v. REXAM BEAUTY 13 reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson Co., 365 F.3d 1054, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Applying the construction of quenched used at trial, “rapidly cooled,” we find no clear error in the district court’s finding of infringement. Valois’s primary argument is that the “New” tube is “freely extruded into warm ambient air,” Valois Br. 52, and cools substantially more slowly than the quenching process disclosed in the ’132 patent. First, we reject Valois’s position that the air surrounding the extruded tube is merely “warm ambient air.” As discussed above, Valois’s “New” tube is extruded and then passed through a “‘cooling tank,’ which uses a constant flow of chilled water that removes heat from the tube via the air in the tank.” Summ. J. Op., 809 F.Supp.2d at 471. We also note that although the air in the tank is hotter than ambient air, the water used in the quenching process disclosed in the ’132 patent is kept at 80ºF to 90ºF. ’132 patent col. 5 ll. 7-17. This is essentially the same temperature as the air in Valois’s chamber. Second, we note that “rapidly cooled” does not require a specific cooling rate. Trial Op. at 47. We see no clear error in the district court’s conclusion that a tube is “rapidly cooled” when it cools from a temperature of 500 degrees to 75 degrees in 3.5 seconds. Summ. J. Op., 809 F. Supp. 2d at 481 (denying Valois’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement). Because Valois has failed to point to any clear error in the district court’s infringement analysis regarding “quenching,” we affirm the court’s finding that Valois’s “New” tube infringes claims 15 and 19 of the ’132 patent. 14 MEADWESTVACO CORPORATION v. REXAM BEAUTY