Court Opinion

ID: 9956174
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-01 13:01:31.404837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:19.251634
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-2170    Document: 92     Page: 1   Filed: 03/15/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

   TUBE-MAC INDUSTRIES, INC., GARY MACKAY,
                DAN HEWSON,
               Plaintiffs-Appellees

                             v.

                  STEVE CAMPBELL,
                   Defendant-Appellant

                    TRANZGAZ, INC.,
                        Defendant
                  ______________________

                        2022-2170
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Eastern District of Virginia in No. 2:20-cv-00197-RCY-
 LRL, Judge Roderick C. Young.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: March 15, 2024
                 ______________________

     LYNN J. ALSTADT, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC,
 Pittsburgh, PA, for plaintiffs-appellees. Also represented
 by RALPH GEORGE FISCHER.

    STEVE CAMPBELL, St. John's, NL, Canada, pro se.
               ______________________
Case: 22-2170    Document: 92     Page: 2    Filed: 03/15/2024

 2                    TUBE-MAC INDUSTRIES, INC. v. CAMPBELL

     Before LOURIE, HUGHES, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
 PER CURIAM.
     Steve Campbell appeals from a decision and accompa-
 nying order of the United States District Court for the
 Eastern District of Virginia mandating the correction of in-
 ventorship of U.S. Patent 9,376,049 (the “’049 patent”), as
 well as several corresponding foreign patents, to add Gary
 Mackay and Dan Hewson as named inventors. Tube-Mac
 Indus., Inc. v. Campbell, 616 F. Supp. 3d 498 (E.D. Va.
 2022) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     Campbell was the original, sole inventor named on the
 ’049 patent, which claims a container for transporting gas-
 eous fluids. Decision at 506–07. Independent claim 1 is
 presented below:
     1. A lightweight intermodal container or road
     trailer based system for transporting refrigerated
     gaseous fluids, comprising:
     an enclosed and insulated transportation housing;
     a plurality of low-temperature resistant pressure
     vessels at least three feet in diameter secured
     within said transportation housing for containing
     said gaseous fluids, each of said pressure vessels
     including a body portion and opposing domed end
     portions attached to said body portion, each of said
     domed end portions having a wall thickness that is
     greater than a wall thickness of said body portion
     and an opening; and
     at least one port boss affixed to each of said domed
     end portions, said at least one port boss including
     an inner component and an outer component, said
     inner component including an inner pipe and an in-
     ner plate transversely extending from said inner
Case: 22-2170      Document: 92     Page: 3    Filed: 03/15/2024

 TUBE-MAC INDUSTRIES, INC. v. CAMPBELL                       3

     pipe, and said outer component including an outer
     pipe and an outer plate transversely extending
     from said outer pipe, wherein said inner pipe is in-
     serted through said opening in each of said domed
     end portions and through said outer pipe such that
     said inner component and said outer component
     are compressed together to cause said inner plate
     to engage an inner surface of a respective one of
     said domed end portions and said outer plate to en-
     gage an outer surface of said respective one of said
     domed end portions to affix said at least one port
     boss to each of said domed end portions.
 ’049 patent, col. 12 l. 43–col. 13 l. 3 (emphases added).
      Campbell originally contracted with Composites Atlan-
 tic Ltd. (“Composites Atlantic”) to assist in fabrication of
 the claimed transportation vessels. Decision at 503. How-
 ever, the resulting prototypes suffered from numerous
 problems, including slippage of the port boss on the vessel’s
 liner. Id. The port boss is essentially a nozzle comprising
 a male inner component compressed against a female outer
 component, which together sandwich the liner of the vessel
 that contains the gas to be transported. See ’049 patent,
 col. 5 ll. 5–49; see also id. at FIG. 8 (female plate 40 com-
 pressed with male plate 36, sandwiching liner 44).
     Campbell then approached Gary Mackay to help fix the
 port boss/liner slippage problem. See Decision at 504; see
 also A.A. 1 252. Dan Hewson, the Vice President of Projects
 at Mackay’s company Tube-Mac Industries Ltd., subse-
 quently provided preliminary design drawings to Camp-
 bell. Decision at 504. Over the next several months,
 Campbell, Mackay, and Hewson continued to exchange
 draft designs and components engineered to improve the
 port boss design. Id. at 504–06.

     1   A.A. refers to the appendix filed by Appellees.
Case: 22-2170     Document: 92     Page: 4    Filed: 03/15/2024

 4                     TUBE-MAC INDUSTRIES, INC. v. CAMPBELL

      After issuance of the ’049 patent, Mackay and Hewson
 brought an action contending that they should have been
 listed as co-inventors, as their contributions to the design
 process were described and claimed in the patent. Decision
 at 502. The district court agreed and subsequently ordered
 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to issue a certificate
 of correction adding Mackay and Hewson as named inven-
 tors on the ’049 patent. A.A. 1−2. Campbell appealed.
     We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a).
                         DISCUSSION
     We review inventorship disputes de novo and the un-
 derlying findings of fact for clear error. Blue Gentian, LLC
 v. Tristar Prods., Inc., 70 F.4th 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
 Under the clear error standard, factual findings “will not
 be overturned in the absence of a definite and firm convic-
 tion that a mistake has been made.” Impax Lab’ys, Inc. v.
 Aventis Pharms. Inc., 468 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
      Under 35 U.S.C. § 256, a district court may order the
 correction of inventorship of a patent once it determines
 that a co-inventor has been erroneously omitted. Evaluat-
 ing an inventorship claim under § 256 begins with “a con-
 struction of each asserted claim to determine the subject
 matter encompassed thereby.” Trovan, Ltd. v. Sokymat
 SA, 299 F.3d 1292, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The alleged con-
 tributions of each asserted co-inventor are then compared
 with “the subject matter of the properly construed claim to
 then determine whether the correct inventors were
 named.” Id. “The named inventors are presumed correct,
 and the party seeking correction of inventorship must show
 by clear and convincing evidence that a joint inventor
 should have been listed.” Blue Gentian, 70 F.4th at 1357
 (citing Eli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp., 376 F.3d 1352,
 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
     To be a joint inventor, one must:
Case: 22-2170     Document: 92      Page: 5    Filed: 03/15/2024

 TUBE-MAC INDUSTRIES, INC. v. CAMPBELL                        5

     (1) contribute in some significant manner to the
     conception or reduction to practice of the invention,
     (2) make a contribution to the claimed invention
     that is not insignificant in quality, when that con-
     tribution is measured against the dimension of the
     full invention, and (3) do more than merely explain
     to the real inventors well-known concepts and/or
     the current state of the art.
 Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
 Although the district court here wrote generally of Mackay
 and Hewson’s “[c]ontribution to [c]onception or [r]eduction
 to [p]ractice,” Decision at 510 (alterations to punctuation
 added), it focused its analysis on the alleged joint inventors’
 contributions to conception; we will do the same.
     The contribution of a joint inventor must be significant.
 See Fina Oil & Chem. Co. v. Ewen, 123 F.3d 1466, 1473
 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[A] joint inventor must contribute in
 some significant manner to the conception of the inven-
 tion.”). We review a district court’s finding as to the signif-
 icance of a purported joint inventor’s contribution for clear
 error. See Plastipak Packaging, Inc. v. Premium Waters,
 Inc., 55 F.4th 1332, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“[O]ften the as-
 sessment of what contribution has been made by a pur-
 ported inventor, and whether that contribution is
 significant, is bound up with material fact disputes which
 a reasonable factfinder could resolve in favor of either
 party.”).
     Campbell first argues that the district court erred in
 determining the scope of the subject matter of the claims.
 But Campbell misunderstands the first step of the inven-
 torship analysis as well as the analysis conducted by the
 court. The court correctly began with “an independent
 claim construction analysis, which is the first step in deter-
 mining inventorship.” Trovan, 229 F.3d at 1304. As ex-
 plained by the court, neither party requested claim
Case: 22-2170    Document: 92      Page: 6    Filed: 03/15/2024

 6                     TUBE-MAC INDUSTRIES, INC. v. CAMPBELL

 construction, Decision at 510; thus the court moved on to
 identify the contributions of the alleged co-inventors.
      Campbell further asserts that the district court erred
 by misidentifying the subject matter of the claims as “the
 port boss.” Appellant’s Br. at 4. We disagree, though we
 understand the source of the confusion. After the court
 concluded that claim construction was not necessary for
 the inventorship dispute, it proceeded, in the same “Step
 One” section of the decision, to identify the subject matter
 “at issue” in the dispute. See Decision at 510. In particu-
 lar, the court concluded that, in view of allegations made
 by Mackay and Hewson, the port boss claimed in independ-
 ent claim 1 and the “compression and crimping” thereof in
 dependent claim 5 provided the subject matter “at issue.”
 Id. at 510. Such a conclusion is better suited to be included
 in the second step of the inventorship analysis. However,
 the drafting choice to include it in a section addressing the
 first step of the inventorship analysis was not harmful, nor
 was the actual conclusion reached clear error. Indeed, the
 alleged contributions of Mackay and Hewson were made
 solely to the port boss and thus the subject matter upon
 which the inventorship dispute hinges primarily concerns
 only the port boss.
     Turning to the second step of the inventorship analysis,
 Campbell argues that the district court clearly erred in de-
 termining the significance of Mackay’s and Hewson’s con-
 tributions to the claimed invention. We disagree.
     The district court provided a thorough history of Mac-
 kay’s and Hewson’s contributions to the claimed port boss.
 In particular, the court summarized how Campbell ap-
 proached Mackay to help with the port boss/liner slippage
 problem encountered with the earlier Composites Atlantic
 design. Decision at 504; see also A.A. 252. Mackay and
 Hewson subsequently proposed multiple changes to the
 structures of both the male and female components of the
 port boss. For example, in the original design provided by
Case: 22-2170     Document: 92      Page: 7    Filed: 03/15/2024

 TUBE-MAC INDUSTRIES, INC. v. CAMPBELL                        7

 Composites Atlantic, the baseplates and pipe portions of
 the port boss were smooth and were pressed together via a
 threaded connection. Decision at 504–05; see also A.A.
 952−53 (photographs of the Composites Atlantic port boss).
 Mackay and Hewson updated the male baseplate to allow
 for the inclusion of an O-ring, as well as a modified t-
 groove, and further added angular grooves to the baseplate
 to create a better seal between the port boss components
 and the liner. Decision at 504−05; see also A.A. 247. They
 further added a starburst pattern of grooves to the female
 baseplate to create torsional rigidity and to resist twisting.
 Decision at 505. Still further, they modified the female
 pipe component to include thinner sections of metal, allow-
 ing for those sections to be crimped onto the male pipe. Id.
 at 504−05; see also A.A. 641.
      The district court subsequently correctly identified how
 Mackay’s and Hewson’s updates to the port boss are de-
 picted in the figures, specification, and claims of the ’049
 patent. Decision at 512–13; see also, e.g., ’049 patent, col.
 6 ll. 17−32, FIG. 8 (describing O-rings); id. col. 6 ll. 33−43,
 FIGS. 7 & 8 (describing ringed grooves in the male
 baseplate); id. col. 6 l. 65−col. 7 l. 3, FIG. 6A (describing
 starburst grooves in the female baseplate); id. col 6 ll. 5−9,
 FIGS. 6−8 (describing crimp-fitting the female pipe to the
 male pipe). The court also took note of dependent claim 5,
 which recites that the “port bosses are affixed to the apex
 of a dome segment of said liner parts by compression and
 crimping.” Id. col. 13 1l. 20–22 (emphasis added).
     The district court then evaluated whether or not Mac-
 kay and Hewson contributed significantly to the conception
 of at least one claim and found that they did by providing
 those updates to the port boss that, although mostly un-
 claimed, nevertheless contributed to the conception of the
 invention. Decision at 510−14. Campbell disputes that
 conclusion.
Case: 22-2170     Document: 92      Page: 8    Filed: 03/15/2024

 8                     TUBE-MAC INDUSTRIES, INC. v. CAMPBELL

      The district court found that before Mackay and Hew-
 son’s contribution, Campbell had a “major problem,” specif-
 ically the problem “of slippage” between the port boss and
 the vessel’s liner material. Decision at 512 n.3. That slip-
 page problem was explicitly mentioned in a report pre-
 pared by Composites Atlantic, which led Campbell to
 contact Mackay to help with port boss design. Id. at 503–
 04; see also A.A. 628−29, 633 (report describing “dome/boss
 slippage” and the “issue of liner / boss misalignment” being
 “of major concern” and “a likely road block to certification”).
 Accordingly, the court found that, prior to Mackay’s and
 Hewson’s involvement, Campbell did not have an idea that
 required only ordinary skill to reduce the invention to prac-
 tice, without extensive research or experimentation. Deci-
 sion at 512–13. The court reasoned that Mackay’s and
 Hewson’s subsequent contributions, including, e.g., the
 starburst groove patterns on the female baseplate, solved
 the slippage problem that precluded previous prototypes
 from being successful and that they thus contributed sig-
 nificantly to the conception of the invention. Id. According
 to the court, “[w]ithout solving the slippage issue, the in-
 vention would not be viable.” Id. at 513.
      The record before us, including the Composites Atlan-
 tic report describing the problems with slippage of the port
 boss, the documented suggestions and contributions made
 by Mackay and Hewson, and the disclosures made in the
 ’049 patent, does not leave us with a definite and firm con-
 viction that a mistake has been made in concluding that
 Mackay and Hewson contributed significantly to the con-
 ception of the claimed invention. See Impax Lab’ys, 468
 F.3d at 1375. We therefore affirm the district court’s judg-
 ment that Mackay and Hewson should be listed as co-in-
 ventors on the ’049 patent.
                      MOTION TO COMPEL
    Separately, Campbell moves at ECF No. 87 to compel
 Appellees to produce various documentation and
Case: 22-2170    Document: 92     Page: 9    Filed: 03/15/2024

 TUBE-MAC INDUSTRIES, INC. v. CAMPBELL                     9

 information. As Campbell notes, we have already twice re-
 jected a substantially similar motion to compel. ECF No.
 87 at 1. Nevertheless, Campbell requests that we “recon-
 sider and issue an order compelling the Appellees to dis-
 close [a] rejected patent filing documentation such that
 said rejected application is included in [our] equitable as-
 sessment of this appeal.” Id. Appellees oppose the motion.
 ECF No. 88.
      Campbell’s motion appears predicated on arguments
 that the Appellees’ conduct “exhibited unclean hands and
 deceptive intent since May 2007.” See, e.g., ECF No. 87 at
 3. He further raises arguments relating to the “evolution-
 ary history of [the claimed port] Boss.” Id. at 4. Those ar-
 guments belong in the merits briefing, and Campbell has
 not shown that additional or supplemental briefing is war-
 ranted beyond what the court’s rules provide. As to Camp-
 bell’s request for the production of various patent
 documents, the court ordinarily decides matters based on
 the record before the district court, see Fed. R. App. P.
 10(a), and we see no basis to depart from that usual prac-
 tice here. We therefore deny the motion.
                        CONCLUSION
      We have considered Campbell’s remaining arguments
 but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
 affirm the district court’s decision and order finding that
 Mackay and Hewson are co-inventors on the ’049 patent.
                        AFFIRMED