Opinion ID: 4160657
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Reward Wall Litigation

Text: In February 2011, IntegraSpec filed suit against multiple defendants—including Reward Wall Systems, Inc. (“Reward Wall”) and Nudura Corporation (“Nudura”)— alleging infringement of the ’933 Patent. The parties filed a joint motion for early claim construction, indicating that two independent claims were at issue—Claim 1 and Claim 19. The parties requested that the district court construe three claim terms found in both claims, two of which are relevant to this appeal: “adjacent” and “substantially the same dimension.” Joint Motion for Early Claim Construction at 2, Phil-Insul Corp. v. Reward Wall Sys., Inc., No. 8:12-cv-91 (D. Neb. Nov. 22, 2011), ECF No. 79. The parties agreed that these limitations should be construed the same way in both claims. Id. The district court conducted a Markman hearing in June 2012, and issued its claim construction order soon thereafter. In relevant part, the court construed the term “adjacent” to mean “next to . . . on the same panel or sidewall.” Phil-Insul Corp. v. Reward Wall Sys., Inc., No. 8:12-cv-91, 2012 WL 2958233, at  (D. Neb. July 19, 2012). Looking at the prosecution history, the court found that the patentee added the limitation “at least two rows” in Claim 1 to distinguish it from prior art that disclosed an ICF block with one row of alternating projections and recesses on each sidewall. Id. at . The court recognized that, although Claim 2 “discloses a construction block on which each panel may have only one row of projections and recesses,” it would be inconsistent with the specification and the prosecution history to construe “adjacent” in Claim 1 to encompass an ICF block having only one row. Id. at , n.13. The district court construed “substantially the same dimension” to mean “the same measurable length, breadth, area and volume, with only minor variations in dimension of up to about 10%.” Id. at . PHIL-INSUL CORP. v. AIRLITE PLASTICS CO. 7 Following the district court’s claim construction, the defendants in Reward Wall separately moved for summary judgment of noninfringement. The district court issued two decisions finding that the accused products did not infringe the claims of the ’933 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. In the first, the district court addressed whether the accused ICFs contained the “adjacent” limitation. PhilInsul Corp. v. Reward Wall Sys., Inc., No. 8:12-cv-91, 2012 WL 5906546,  (D. Neb. Nov. 26, 2012). With respect to the Nudura ICFs, IntegraSpec did not argue that the products literally infringed, but instead asserted infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Id. at  (“IntegraSpec does not contend that the accused Nudura ICFs or the accused Reward Wall ICFs literally infringe the ’933 Patent.”). Looking to the prosecution history, the court found that there was a narrowing amendment that limited the scope of the patent such that an ICF with less than two rows of alternating projections and recesses on a given panel or sidewall cannot infringe. Id. at -7. Given this amendment, the court concluded that “prosecution history precludes an ICF with one row of projections and recesses on a panel or sidewall . . . from infringing the ’933 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents.” Id. at . Because it was undisputed that the Nudura ICFs had only one row of alternating projections and recesses on a given panel, the court found that the Nudura ICFs did not infringe the asserted claims—which included Claim 2—as a matter of law. Id. In the second decision, the district court addressed whether the accused ICFs contained the “substantially the same dimension” limitation. IntegraSpec conceded that, given the court’s construction of this limitation, it could not argue that the accused Reward Wall ICFs literally infringed the ’933 Patent. Phil-Insul Corp. v. Reward Wall Sys., Inc., No. 8:12-cv-91, 2013 WL 4774726,  (D. Neb. Sept. 5, 2013). Indeed, it was undisputed that 8 PHIL-INSUL CORP. v. AIRLITE PLASTICS CO. the Reward Wall iForm ICFs included “projections and/or recesses that differ in dimension by at least twice the 10% threshold specified in the court’s construction of the limitation ‘substantially the same dimension.’” Id. at . As such, the only issue was whether the Reward Wall ICFs infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. Looking to the prosecution history, the court found that, “to gain issuance of the ’933 Patent, [IntegraSpec] limited its claims to ICFs with projections and recesses having ‘the same measurable length, breadth, area, and volume.’” Id. at . Given this concession, the court found that “IntegraSpec is estopped from asserting that ICFs with a row of projections and recesses that do not each have the same measurable length, breadth, area, and volume contain equivalents of the ‘substantially the same dimension’ limitation.” Id. The court concluded, therefore, that the Reward Wall iForm ICFs did not infringe as a matter of law. Given the district court’s decisions entering summary judgment of noninfringement, the parties stipulated to jointly request certification for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court granted the parties’ request and entered final judgment in favor of the defendants. IntegraSpec appealed the district court’s final judgment to this court, challenging only the court’s construction of the terms “adjacent” and “dimension.” Decision on Appeal, 2016 WL 5107131, at  (“On appeal, IntegraSpec challenged only the court’s claim construction, specifically, the construction of the terms ‘adjacent’ and ‘dimension.’”). IntegraSpec did not challenge any of the issues determined in the district court’s noninfringement decisions. Id. After briefing on appeal, but before oral argument, the PTO issued the second ex parte reexamination certificate, confirming the patentability of Claims 2, 4, 5, 11, 13PHIL-INSUL CORP. v. AIRLITE PLASTICS CO. 9 16, 19-23, and 25-27. Id. IntegraSpec filed an unopposed motion requesting that this court take judicial notice of the results of the reexamination proceedings. We granted that motion on September 22, 2014. Order, Phil-Insul Corp. v. Reward Wall Sys., Inc., No. 14-1078 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 22, 2014), ECF No. 65. The court heard oral argument on October 7, 2014, and summarily affirmed the district court’s judgment pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 36. Phil-Insul Corp. v. Reward Wall Sys., Inc., 580 F. App’x 907 (Fed. Cir. 2014).