Opinion ID: 812884
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: “Very high mechanical resistance”

Text: ArcelorMittal also disputes the district court’s interpretation of the claim term “very high mechanical resistance.” The district court interpreted that term to mean “the flat-rolled steel has been subjected, after rolling, to additional controlled heating and cooling and has an ultimate tensile strength of 1500 MPa or greater.” ArcelorMittal, 755 F. Supp. 2d at 549–50. We agree with the district court. We begin with the specification, which states that a “high” or “substantial” mechanical resistance “may exceed 1500 MPa.” ’805 patent col. 2 ll. 51–54, col. 3 ll. 52–54. The specification does not define “very high” mechanical resistance, but it implies that the 1500 MPa level is necessary for “high” mechanical resistance. If 1500 MPa is high mechanical resistance, then very high resistance must be at least 1500 MPa. ArcelorMittal argues that “very high” mechanical resistance can include a resistance as low as 1000 MPa, pointing to language in the specification stating that the invention “makes it possible to obtain a mechanical resistance in excess of 1000 MPa.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 40–42. However, the specification does not refer to 1000 MPa as “high” much less “very high.” Id. Thus, the specification supports the district court’s construction. Turning to the extrinsic evidence, the district court observed that the term “very high mechanical resistance” is not a term of art in the steelmaking industry and does not have any ordinary meaning. ArcelorMittal, 755 F. Supp. 2d at 550. ArcelorMittal points to various documents suggesting that steel with mechanical resistance as low as 700 MPa may be considered “ultra high” strength steel, but the record does not establish that these references concern boron steel comparable to that described in the patent. On the other hand, one of the inventors of the ’805 patent coauthored an article on heat-treated boron 11 ARCELOR MITTAL v. AK STEEL CORP steel before the patent was filed. This article is prior art. The article describes steel with “high mechanical characteristics (UTS > 1500 MPa and YS > 1100 MPa)” after heat treatment. X. Bano & JP. Laurent, Heat Treated Boron Steels in the Automotive Industry, in XXXV 39th MWSP Conf. Proc. ISS 673, 673, 677 (1998) (“Bano”). Prior art can “help to demonstrate how a disputed term is used by those skilled in the art.” Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1584. Thus, while testimony regarding an inventor’s subjective understanding of patent terminology is irrelevant to claim construction, Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337, 1346–47 (Fed. Cir. 2008), when an inventor’s understanding of a claim term is expressed in the prior art, it can be evidence of how those skilled in the art would have understood that term at the time of the invention. Markman, 52 F.3d at 991 (“[E]vidence, in the form of prior art documentary evidence or expert testimony, can show what the claims would mean to those skilled in the art”); Howmedica, 540 F.3d at 1347 & n.5. By defining “high” mechanical resistance as greater than 1500 MPa, the prior art here suggests that “very high” mechanical resistance would be understood to be at least that high. Accordingly, both the intrinsic evidence and extrinsic evidence support the district court’s conclusion that “a very high mechanical resistance” means a mechanical resistance of 1500 MPa or greater. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s construction of “the steel sheet has a very high mechanical resistance.” At oral argument, AK Steel’s counsel conceded that at least some accused products have a mechanical resistance of 1500 MPa or greater. However, as a result of the district court’s incorrect claim construction of “hot-rolled steel sheet,” the jury was instructed at trial to consider direct infringement only under the doctrine of equivaARCELOR MITTAL v. AK STEEL CORP 12 lents. Final Jury Instructions, ArcelorMittal Fr. v. AK Steel Corp., No. 10-CV-00050, at 22 (D. Del. Jan. 14, 2011), ECF No. 212. Thus, there has been no determination below regarding which accused products would or would not literally infringe under the correct claim construction. That infringement issue will need to be addressed in the first instance on remand, either by the court on summary judgment or by a jury in a new trial. Because the jury found no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, and ArcelorMittal has not challenged that aspect of the verdict, any infringement analysis found to be necessary on remand should be limited to literal infringement. II Anticipation ArcelorMittal argues that the evidence cannot support the jury’s anticipation verdict. “Anticipation is a question of fact, reviewed for substantial evidence when tried to a jury.” Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The jury’s finding of anticipation was based on Bano. The Bano article was written and presented by inventor Jean-Pierre Laurent and his colleague Xavier Bano during the development of the precoated steel claimed in the ’805 patent, and the parties agree that it discusses hot-stamping boron steel. AK Steel argued, and the jury found, that the article disclosed the entire invention. ArcelorMittal challenges that finding on the grounds that Bano disclosed neither coating the steel sheet before thermal treatment nor coating the steel sheet with aluminum or an aluminum alloy. We conclude that there is not substantial evidence that Bano disclosed coating with aluminum or aluminum alloy. A claim is anticipated only where “each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.” Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rock13 ARCELOR MITTAL v. AK STEEL CORP well Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Anticipation must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011). Bano does not expressly disclose either precoating or particular coating compositions. However, it does state that “it is advisable to protect heat treated finished parts with coatings” and that “[i]t is possible to coat this new heat treated boron steel after degreasing as with conventional steels.” Bano at 676. As discussed in the next section, these statements could have supported a jury finding that Bano disclosed pre-coating. However, the jury’s apparent conclusion that Bano disclosed coating with aluminum or aluminum alloy is more problematic. In denying JMOL, the district court relied on In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676 (C.C.P.A. 1962), to hold that “aluminum was a member of a very small class of metals suitable for use in coating boron steel,” and therefore inherent in Bano. ArcelorMittal, 811 F. Supp. 2d at 967–68. Petering establishes that when a prior art reference discloses a “definite and limited class” of suitable members within a general formula, it may be read to disclose each member of that class. Petering, 301 F.2d at 681. Yet Bano does not even explicitly refer to coating with metals; indeed, the only specific coating it references is “phosphatization . . . followed by cataphoresis.” Bano at 676. That process refers to coating with paint, not metal, and it is not clear how paint and metal coatings would both fit into any general formula comparable to that found in the prior art in Petering. Moreover, even if paint and metal were part of the same general formula, the record does not support a finding that there is a “definite and limited class” of coatings for steel sheet. There is insufficient evidence that the varieties of paints and metal alloys are sufficiently narrow that one of ordinary skill in the art would “at once envisage each member of ARCELOR MITTAL v. AK STEEL CORP 14 this limited class.” Petering, 301 F.2d at 681 (emphasis added). Without an explicit disclosure of aluminum coating or substantial evidence that aluminum belonged to a sufficiently definite and limited class of possible coatings, the jury verdict of anticipation based on Bano cannot stand. We therefore reverse the district court’s denial of JMOL as to anticipation. III Obviousness ArcelorMittal also urges us to overturn the jury’s obviousness verdict, arguing both that the jury’s verdict was not supported by substantial evidence and that the jury was foreclosed from consideration of the secondary factor of commercial success by the district court’s incorrect claim construction. “We review [the] jury’s conclusions on obviousness, a question of law, without deference, and the underlying findings of fact . . . for substantial evidence.” Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (alterations in original) (internal quotations omitted). A. Prima Facie Case ArcelorMittal concedes that “each element of the invention” was known in the prior art. Appellant’s Br. 3. The jury found the asserted claims of the ’805 patent obvious in view of Bano in combination with French Patent No. 1,297,906 (“French ’906 patent”). The French ’906 patent describes coating steel with aluminum to protect against oxidation during hot forging (the missing element in the anticipation finding). We agree that Bano 15 ARCELOR MITTAL v. AK STEEL CORP together with the French ’906 patent supported a jury finding of a prima facie case of obviousness.2 The aluminum-based coating described in the ’805 patent is applied to the steel sheet prior to hot-stamping in order to prevent oxidation. Regarding that pre-coating requirement, AK Steel argues that Bano in discussing coating distinguishes between “heat treated finished parts” and “boron steel,” and that the reference to coating the latter inherently discloses coating before hotstamping. Appellee’s Br. 44–45. Further, AK Steel argues that the reference to coating after degreasing makes clear that the coating is applied before hotstamping. ArcelorMittal counters that the “degreasing” language could refer to the removal of oil applied after hot-stamping and that the article’s discussion of decarburization problems is inconsistent with pre-coating.3 What a prior art reference discloses is a factual question. Tegal Corp. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 257 F.3d 1331, 1345–46 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We think the resolution of this factual dispute was up to the jury, and that the jury could 2 Because the correct claim construction broadens the scope of the claims, it does not undermine the prima facie case of obviousness found by the jury. 3 The Bano reference contains graphs that show de- carburization which would not occur if the steel was coated in accordance with claim 1 of the ’805 patent. However, there is no evidence that other coatings not covered in claim 1 would have prevented decarburization. Moreover, Bano only states that “[i]t is possible to coat this new heat treated boron steel.” Bano at 676. This language suggests that coating is only an optional step, and there is no reason to assume that the steel would have necessarily been coated for the purposes of measuring decarburization during thermal treatment. Thus, the graph is of limited use in evaluating whether or not Bano disclosed pre-coating. ARCELOR MITTAL v. AK STEEL CORP 16 properly conclude that Bano teaches applying the coating before thermal treatment. As for coating with aluminum, the French ’906 patent disclosed coating steel with aluminum during hot forging4 to protect against the same oxidation and decarburization problems that the ’805 patent was intended to address. AK Steel thus urges that the invention described in the ’805 patent is no more than the application of known solutions to equivalent problems in an analogous context. The thrust of ArcelorMittal’s objection to this reasoning is that the hot forging described in the French ’906 patent is so different from hot-stamping that there would be no motivation to combine. ArcelorMittal points to several differences between the hot forging process described in the French ’906 patent and hot-stamping and cites evidence that those skilled in the art did not think that an aluminum coating would survive hot-stamping. ArcelorMittal’s implication appears to be that hot-stamping and hot forging are not analogous art. For its part, AK Steel points to the similarity of the problems confronted by the two patents and evidence that aluminum coatings were known to survive thermal treatment and quenching. Whether a particular technology is analogous art is a question of fact. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1237–38 (Fed. Cir. 2010). As with the evidence about whether a skilled artisan would read Bano to disclose precoating, we think this factual dispute was for the jury to resolve. We also conclude that substantial evidence supports the jury’s determination that there was a sufficient motivation to combine. AK Steel provided significant expert testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the knowledge to combine the 4 Hot forging does not involve the rapid heating and cooling of hot-stamping and does not change the steel’s microstructure. 17 ARCELOR MITTAL v. AK STEEL CORP aluminum coating disclosed by the French 906 patent with the pre-coating that the jury found Bano disclosed and would have expected to succeed. In short, the jury properly concluded that AK Steel had established a prima facie case of obviousness.5 The district court properly denied ArcelorMittal’s JMOL motion of non-obviousness. B. Secondary Considerations The final issue is whether the district court’s erroneous claim construction of “hot-rolled steel sheet” requires a new trial on obviousness. ArcelorMittal argues that a new trial is necessary because under the district court’s claim construction the jury could not consider the commercial success6 of their cold-rolled commercial product. Although ArcelorMittal’s commercial success evidence was before the jury, the district court instructed the jury only to consider “[c]ommercial success or lack of commercial success of products covered by the asserted claims.” Final Jury Instructions, ArcelorMittal Fr. v. AK Steel Corp., No. 10-CV-00050, at 37 (D. Del. Jan. 14, 2011) (emphasis added). The jury was also instructed that only steel sheet hot-rolled to its final thickness was covered by the asserted claims. Id. at 20. Thus, the jury was proscribed from considering the commercial success of ArcelorMittal’s cold-rolled steel sheet. A district court’s incorrect claim construction may require a new trial, Ecolab Inc. v. Paraclipse, Inc., 285 F.3d 1362, 1374–76 (Fed. Cir. 2002), but only where the party 5 We conclude that AcelorMittal’s assertion that claim 7 would not have been obvious even if claim 1 would have been obvious was waived. Claim 7 must stand or fall with claim 1. 6 ArcelorMittal makes passing reference to other secondary considerations such as copying and unexpected results, but ArcelorMittal has not briefed those issues sufficiently to preserve them. ARCELOR MITTAL v. AK STEEL CORP 18 seeking a new trial shows that they were prejudiced by the error. Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007). AK Steel argues that it is not necessary to consider the commercial success of the cold-rolled product because of the well-established principle that claims which read on obvious subject matter are unpatentable even if they also read on nonobvious subject matter. Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1328 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting the “long-established rule that ‘[c]laims which are broad enough to read on obvious subject matter are unpatentable even though they also read on nonobvious subject matter.’” (quoting In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1015 (C.C.P.A. 1972))). AK Steel urges that even if the claims included both hot-rolled steel (which was not cold-rolled) and cold-rolled steel, the jury’s verdict that the hot-rolled steel embodiment was obvious rendered the whole claim obvious whether or not the cold-rolled embodiment is nonobvious in view of its commercial success. However, this is not a situation in which the claims themselves describe distinct alternative embodiments of the invention, and where the obviousness of one embodiment would invalidate the entire claim. Rather, it is a situation in which the claim is limited to steel that is hotrolled, but contains “comprising” language permitting the performance of an additional (cold-rolling) step. In such circumstances our cases make clear that the commercial success of the embodiment with additional unclaimed features is to be considered when evaluating the obviousness of the claim, provided that embodiment’s success has a sufficient nexus to the claimed and novel features of the invention. In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Glatt Air Techniques, Inc., 630 F.3d 1026, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am., Inc., 98 F.3d 1563, 1570 19 ARCELOR MITTAL v. AK STEEL CORP (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[A] patentee need not show that all possible embodiments within the claims were successfully commercialized in order to rely on the success in the marketplace of the embodiment that was commercialized.”) Thus, in Kao, we required consideration of a patent applicant’s commercially successful controlled release painkiller even though the success was not proven across the full range of claimed dissolution rates. 639 F.3d at 1069. However, we emphasized that the required consideration of commercial success includes a threshold determination of whether the commercial success has the necessary nexus with the claimed invention. Id. at 1068– 69; see also Wyers, 616 F.3d at 1246. The same rules apply here. The commercial success of ArcelorMittal’s cold-rolled embodiment must be considered to the extent that its success results from the claimed combination of elements that constitutes the invention, rather than from cold-rolling, which was not claimed and already known in the prior art, or from other unclaimed features. In other words, whether there is a nexus here depends upon a comparison between cold-rolled steel produced by the patented process and cold-rolled steel produced by alternative processes to see if the former achieved material commercial success over and above the latter. Absent a demonstrated nexus, ArcelorMittal’s commercial success evidence is not significant. See Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[I]f the feature that creates the commercial success was known in the prior art, the success is not pertinent.”). The remaining issue is whether a new trial on obvi- ousness is required to address the issue of commercial success. We think this is not a case in which the prima facie case so strong that, as a matter of law, it would overcome ArcelorMittal’s commercial success evidence. ARCELOR MITTAL v. AK STEEL CORP 20 See, e.g., Wyers, 616 F.3d at 1245. Therefore, we conclude that the district court’s claim construction prejudiced ArcelorMittal with respect to obviousness. Accordingly, we vacate the jury’s obviousness verdict and remand for a new trial addressing only the commercial success aspect of obviousness and infringement under the correct claim construction. IV Conclusion On remand, the district court must address whether, under the correct claim construction, the asserted claims of the ’805 patent are obvious in light of any evidence of commercial success of hot-rolled steel that is also coldrolled and that has the required nexus with ArcelorMittal’s claims. Additionally, as discussed above, the district court must address the issue of literal infringement under the correct claim construction. In remanding for a limited new trial addressing only infringement under the correct claim construction and whether ArcelorMittal has pertinent commercial success evidence sufficient to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness, we do not foreclose the district court from entertaining a motion for summary judgment on these issues that might obviate the need for a further trial. AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, REMANDED COSTS Costs to neither party. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit __________________________ ARCELORMITTAL FRANCE AND ARCELORMITTAL ATLANTIQUE ET LORRAINE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AK STEEL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, AND SEVERSTAL DEARBORN, INC. AND WHEELING-NISSHIN INC., Defendants-Appellees. __________________________ 2011-1638 __________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in case no. 10-CV-0050, Judge Sue L. Robinson. __________________________