Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Afros S.P.A. v. Krauss-Maffei Corp.
Citations: 671 F. Supp. 1402; 56 U.S.L.W. 2192; 5 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1145; 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7826Docket: Civ. A. 84-358 MMS
Court: District Court, D. Delaware; August 17, 1987; Federal District Court
Afros S.P.A. filed a lawsuit against Krauss-Maffei Corporation (KMC) for infringing U.S. Patent No. 4,332,335, which pertains to high-pressure impingement mixing for polyurethane production. KMC, a subsidiary of Krauss-Maffei Aktiengesellschaft, denied infringement and counterclaimed for infringement of its own U.S. Patents No. 3,706,515 and No. 3,975,128. The court conducted a nine-day trial focused on liability, concluding on February 27, 1987, with a subsequent post-trial argument on April 29.
The court determined that the '335 Patent is valid and that KMC's mixing heads literally infringe it. The infringement was deemed willful, qualifying as an exceptional case under relevant statutes. Regarding KMC's counterclaim, the court found the assignment of the '515 and '128 Patent rights ineffective, denying KMC standing to pursue the counterclaim. Alternatively, the court ruled those patents valid but not infringed.
The case centers around a mixing process involving two polymers, polyol and isocyanate, in producing flexible foam polyurethane. The mixing heads from both parties are similar in design, featuring an L-shaped configuration with specific inlet nozzle placements that significantly impact the mixing process's effectiveness.
The '335 Patent specifies that inlet nozzles must be positioned 'close to' or 'in close proximity to' the quieting chamber to enhance mixing of the component flow as it exits the mixing chamber. Dr. Carlo Fiorentini, the patent's inventor, explains that this positioning allows residual kinetic energy to create a rebounding effect in the L-shaped discharge chamber, a design resulting from nearly a decade of RIM industry research. The shift toward high-pressure mixing heads in the 1970s addressed the challenge of mixing polyol and isocyanate, which resist blending like oil and water. High-pressure devices mix the chemicals outside the mold, with the '515 Patent featuring recirculation grooves that maintain pressure in the inlet nozzles even when the mixing head is inactive. These grooves redirect components back into a storage area, ensuring pressure is sustained until the mixing piston is retracted, allowing unobstructed flow through the inlet nozzles.
Dr. Christopher Macosko, an expert for the defendant, identifies four key principles for high-pressure mixing heads: high-velocity recirculation, controlled mixing duration, a retractable plunger for cleaning and recirculation, and sufficient back pressure to enhance mixing and eliminate air bubbles. The mixing piston, or 'control slide,' has two positions controlled by a hydraulic pump; in the closed position, chemicals recirculate under high pressure through the grooves, while in the open position, they discharge into the mixing chamber. The opposing inlet nozzles facilitate impingement, creating turbulence that allows continued mixing. The duration of the open position, known as the 'shot,' varies from seconds to half a minute based on product volume. After the shot, the mixing piston cleans the chamber and recirculates any residual chemicals. The 90° discharge chamber also uses a cleaning piston to expel remaining polyurethane after the mixing piston closes. High-pressure mixing heads offer superior mixing efficiency compared to low-pressure systems, although the effectiveness can vary based on multiple factors.
Three critical challenges in designing an effective high-pressure mixing head include:
1. **Cleaning the Mixing and Discharge Chambers**: Polyol and isocyanate, when combined, react immediately to form polyurethane, which can harden and obstruct the mixing chamber if not thoroughly cleaned. A precision-engineered mixing piston can minimize residual build-up by ensuring no gaps exist when in the closed position. In L-shaped heads, a secondary piston is necessary to clean the discharge chamber rapidly, preventing hardening of any residual material.
2. **Transient Phenomenon**: The design must prevent recirculation and impingement of components during the piston's transition from closed to open positions. This transition creates a transient time, where pressure builds in the lines, potentially disrupting the mixing process. If the blockage persists, it can lead to suboptimal pressure delivery, resulting in off-ratio flows and defective products. The misdirection of components during the piston's movement further exacerbates these mixing issues.
3. **Mix/Flow Dynamics**: Achieving a balance between turbulent flow for effective mixing within the mixing head and laminar flow for even mold filling at discharge is essential. If the flow is overly chaotic during ejection, it leads to uneven product formation; conversely, insufficient turbulence results in incomplete mixing. The mixing chamber's diameter significantly influences this balance—too wide reduces mixing efficiency, while too narrow fails to quiet the flow adequately before discharge.
Historically, prior to 1978, high-pressure mixing heads utilized a straight-line design with a single piston, often leading to transient issues that manufacturers mitigated by using aftermixers to divert problematic fluid away from the mold.
The aftermixer enhances mixing as the flow exits the head by creating blockage that increases turbulence. Once the polyurethane hardens, the mold is opened, and the aftermixer's residue is discarded, highlighting inefficiencies. The straight-line technology has notable limitations: in closed-mold systems, the mixing head can only perform discrete operations, requiring the mold to be removed, cleaned, and reattached for each use, which delays production. Attempts to use this technology in open-pour molds have generally failed due to inadequate mixing and fluid splashing. Consequently, the closed-mold approach is time-consuming and wasteful, as it discards polyurethane residue.
Despite these issues, straight-line heads were commercially viable, prompting ongoing industry efforts to improve mixing and enable functionality with open-pour molds. Companies Afros and KMAG developed straight-line heads in the 1970s, and Dr. Fiorentini filed a patent application in 1978 for an L-shape mixing head, building upon earlier patents that disclosed high-pressure L-shape heads. The '335 Patent cites only the KMAG '128 Patent as prior art. The Afros FPL heads feature short mixing chambers, which reduce piston stroke length and the force required from the hydraulic pump, resulting in quicker mixing and less transient phenomenon.
Dr. Fiorentini's invention focuses on maintaining component mixing in the discharge chamber by positioning the inlet nozzles near the discharge chamber, enhancing the mix compared to longer mixing chambers. The transverse placement of the discharge duct allows for rapid laminar flow conversion despite turbulence. The KMAG UL heads closely resemble the FPL heads, differing only in inlet nozzle location. KMC introduced the UL head in the U.S. in 1982, while Afros sold its first FPL head in 1978, with both products performing well despite a stagnant polyurethane molded products market. The L-shape head has advantages over straight-line heads, including compatibility with open-pour molds, enabling automation and reducing labor costs. Open-pour products often match or exceed the quality of those made with straight-line heads, and the elimination of the aftermixer reduces polyurethane waste. Evidence indicates that nearly half of the plaintiff's sales involve complete open-pour systems, and the heads are priced between $8,000 and $12,000, leading to increased sales as manufacturers shift from straight-line to L-shape heads.
The litigation concerns three patents that trace the evolution from the straight-line method in KMC's '515 Patent to Afros's L-shape design, with the '335 Patent, titled "Head for Mixing and Ejecting Interacting Liquid Components, for Molding Plastic Articles," issued on June 1, 1982, being a focal point.
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 9 pertain to a mixing and ejection head for molding plastic materials.
Claim 1 details a mixing head featuring a body that creates a mixing chamber, a discharge duct with an outlet, and two infeed ducts for injecting liquid components. It incorporates exit port means for fluid communication between infeed ducts and the discharge duct. The system includes piston means to control this communication during the injection period, ensuring a continuous flow of mixed components through the discharge duct. The mixing chamber is angled at approximately 90° to the discharge duct and is smaller in both length and volume, facilitating effective mixing and swirling overflow into the discharge duct.
Claim 6 describes a similar head designed for mixing and ejecting variable amounts of fluid materials. It includes a mixing chamber, a discharge duct with an outlet, and a cleaning member that can slide between positions to control fluid communication. Two infeed ducts for individual components are situated near the duct inlet, promoting continued mixing. The claim also involves recycling ducts for the components, a slide valve to regulate fluid communication, and two double-acting cylinders for controlling the cleaning member and slide valve. The mechanism ensures that the mixing chamber, infeed ducts, and discharge duct are interconnected during the component injection process.
Claim 8 specifies that the mixing chamber's cross-sectional area and volume are less than those of the discharge duct.
A head in claims 1 or 6 has a mixing chamber significantly shorter than the discharge duct. The Krauss-Maffei '515 Patent, issued on December 19, 1972, covers a device for feeding flowable material to a mold cavity. Key claims include an apparatus that features a housing with a mixing chamber leading to a mold cavity, inlet ports for flowable components, and a control slide that regulates the flow of these components. The control slide can block or allow flow, creating recirculation channels when blocked, with pumps supplying the components. Claims also specify the control slide's positioning within the chamber and its cross-sectional shape at its end.
The '128 Patent, issued on August 17, 1976, pertains to a system for filling molds with reactive synthetic resin components. It includes a housing with a quieting chamber and a mixing chamber, where reactive components are injected to create a mixture. The mixture is displaced into the quieting chamber by a reciprocating piston, which helps move the mixture into the mold. Claims specify the dimensions and configurations of the chambers and the operation of a mixing piston for recirculation. The prosecution of the patent required an amendment to Claim 1 before approval.
The language change in the patent claim mandates that the "quieting chamber" must have a cross-sectional area equivalent to that of the "mixing chamber." The validity of the '335 Patent is contested by the defendant, who claims it is both obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 and indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112. Additionally, the defendant contends that the patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by the plaintiff, specifically the failure to disclose the Upjohn '299 Patent as prior art. The Court will first assess the patent's validity before addressing any potential infringement by the defendant's UL mixing heads.
To evaluate obviousness, the Court follows the standard that assesses whether the invention would have been obvious at the time it was created, citing Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc. The presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. 282 is key, with the burden of proving invalidity resting on the challenger, who must meet a "clear and convincing" evidence standard. While uncited prior art does not negate this presumption, it can ease the burden on the challenger.
The Court must make four factual findings per Graham v. John Deere Co. to determine obviousness: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of non-obviousness. The defendant argues that the Upjohn '299 Patent, which discusses a high-pressure mixing head, is relevant and shows similarities to the '335 Patent, potentially contributing to the argument of obviousness. The Upjohn Patent’s teachings involve the introduction of a frothing agent through a chamber that mixes with previously combined components, highlighting its pertinence to the issues at hand.
The frothing agent or propellant interacts with the polyurethane flow in a specially designed L-shaped discharge chamber, which includes a second mixing head for continuous fluid communication. The Upjohn '299 Patent allows for chemical components to enter through opposing inlet nozzles, recirculate via grooves on the mixing piston, and be cleaned by a retractable piston. The design permits operation beyond the L-shape by removing the second mixing head for conventional methods. The initial impingement of components for polyurethane foam occurs in a separate mixing chamber to avoid interference from the propellant.
The Schneider '874 Patent, which was not cited to the Examiner, describes a system with two or three mixing heads attached to a central discharge chamber, configured at 180° or 120° angles. This arrangement facilitates laminar flow before injection into molds, incorporating similar features such as recirculation grooves and cleaning pistons. Claim 1 specifies that the discharge chamber's diameter is significantly larger than that of the mixing chambers.
The Court is tasked with evaluating the uncited prior art alongside the cited '128 and '515 Patents. The '128 Patent describes an L-shape configuration with two mixing heads at a 90° angle, asserting that the discharge chamber's cross-sectional area matches that of the mixing chamber, with conflicting interpretations regarding the sizes of the chambers. It includes provisions for recirculation grooves and cleaning pistons, primarily designed for batch processes, although it does not explicitly limit fluid communication between the chambers during operation.
The '515 Patent features recirculation grooves for deflecting components back to external pumps and describes a straight-line mixing head with claims phrased in singular tense concerning the control slide and mixing chamber. Claim 1 outlines a control slide that regulates the flow of components into and out of the chamber.
The patent emphasizes a single chamber design for mixing and discharging polyurethane, featuring diametrically opposed component inlet nozzles and a 'control slide' that serves a cleaning function. When comparing the '335 Patent to prior art, the analysis is guided by two principles: the invention must be viewed as a whole, rather than just its parts, and combinations of old elements cannot be invalidated simply because they appear in prior patents; this would undermine patent law. Distinguishing the patented device from prior art is complex, as some patents that combine known elements are upheld while others are deemed obvious without specific prior art disclosure.
Key features of the prior art include: the '515 Patent's recirculation grooves, which influenced subsequent high-pressure mixing heads; the length of the 'control slide' determining inlet nozzle placement for effective mixing; cleaning chambers utilizing a piston to remove residual material; and three prior art references with L-shape designs featuring separate mixing and discharge chambers. The Schneider '874 Patent can also accommodate a triaxial configuration. Additionally, the Upjohn '299 Patent shows inter-chamber fluid communication and focuses on a frothing method rather than improving mixing through the L-shape design. The contradictory statements in Claim 1 of the '128 Patent regarding chamber sizes do not indicate a design where the discharge chamber is larger than the mixing chamber. The teachings of prior patents are significant for assessing the obviousness of the '335 Patent, with the '515 Patent illustrating a straight-line mixing head and the Upjohn '299 Patent clarifying its focus on frothing rather than enhanced mixing.
The Schneider '874 Patent describes a system where two or three independent mixing heads function before merging flows in a discharge chamber. The '128 Patent is noted for its L-shape design, which features two straight-line mixing heads at a 90° angle to enhance polyurethane mixing prior to molding. The crux of the discussion revolves around whether the inlet nozzle placement and the short mixing chamber in the '335 Patent represent significant deviations from existing patents. Claim 1 specifies that the inlet nozzles are positioned near the exit port of the mixing chamber, while Claim 6 indicates they are close to the duct inlet, ensuring that mixing continues into the discharge duct.
These design choices yield two notable benefits: reducing the piston’s stroke and size, thus decreasing transient effects, and maintaining turbulent flow as the polyurethane rebounds within the discharge chamber due to residual kinetic energy. The L-shape design also facilitates additional mixing at the top of the discharge chamber, which has a larger diameter, allowing for rapid dampening of turbulence.
Testimony from Mr. Fritz Schneider, a seasoned expert in high-pressure mixing head design, highlighted the advantages of the '335 Patent over Krauss-Maffei models, particularly in free pour applications and closed molds without requiring an after mixer. He acknowledged that while the principles of turbulence are consistent across designs, the prevalent use of longer mixing chambers with distant inlet nozzles was puzzling, given that many were simultaneously addressing similar engineering challenges during the development of RIM machines.
Finding simple solutions to complex problems is notably challenging. Mr. Schneider's credible testimony highlights the advantages of the '335 Patent's mixing head design, which features a short mixing chamber with inlet nozzles positioned near the discharge chamber, enabling its use in open pour molds—an improvement over prior straight-line mixing heads. Although this design appears simple retrospectively, Schneider emphasizes that such solutions are often elusive. This evidence underscores the distinctions between prior art and the claimed invention.
Expert testimonies from Dr. Charles Garris and Dr. Macosko converge on the optimal mixing chamber length and inlet nozzle location, with Garris noting that turbulent flow diminishes within two diameters of impingement, while Macosko asserts that a length-diameter ratio of less than one hinders laminar flow establishment. Both experts acknowledge that the 90° bend in the mixing chambers enhances mixing, influenced by whether the flow is turbulent or laminar.
Prior art patents do not specify the inlet nozzle location or preferred mixing chamber length. Patent drawings indicate differing length-diameter ratios, with the '335 Patent showing a 0.5:1 ratio, contrasting with the '128 Patent's 3.8:1 and Upjohn '299 Patent's 7.3:1 ratios. While the drawings serve illustrative purposes, they assist in assessing the prior art's teachings regarding nozzle placement in relation to mixing efficacy.
The Court references the Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. case to outline factors for determining the hypothetical ordinary level of skill in the art, including the inventor's educational background, encountered problems, prior art solutions, innovation pace, technology sophistication, and the educational level of active field workers. This assessment aims to maintain the integrity of patent law by emphasizing the state of the art prior to the patent's issuance, focusing on conventional wisdom rather than hindsight innovation.
The developmental timeline for high-pressure mixing heads, transitioning from straight-line to L-shape design of the '335 Patent, spanned from 1970 to 1977, during which the ordinary skill in the art remained consistent. Dr. Jack Buist, the plaintiff's expert, characterized the hypothetical skilled individual as a team composite, including a mechanical engineer with a bachelor's degree, some chemistry background, and experience in polyurethane manufacturing, alongside a technician skilled in engineering design. Notably, Dr. Buist indicated that this person would lack training in fluid dynamics. In contrast, Dr. Macosko defined the skilled individual as having a mechanical engineering degree, five years of design experience, and knowledge of fluid dynamics. The challenges in the polyurethane industry during this period involved mechanical design and fluid dynamics, emphasizing the need for a basic understanding of fluid dynamics to address transient phenomena and the requirement for splash-free pouring. The court concluded that, while a moderate skill level was sufficient, an ordinary skilled person in the art needed at least a working knowledge of how design affects the mixing and flow of polyurethane.
Secondary considerations, particularly commercial success, are critical in assessing patent obviousness. The court must evaluate external evidence relevant to the patent, as indicated in precedents. The plaintiff cited the commercial success of its FPL heads as evidence of the '335 Patent's nonobviousness, with such success being a strong indicator. However, the court noted that substantial weight is only given to this evidence if a clear nexus exists between the invention's merits and the commercial success.
Defendant contends that the plaintiff's raw sales figures do not sufficiently demonstrate a connection between the patent and any inference of commercial success, lacking context regarding overall market share. Plaintiff presented worldwide unit sales data for straight-line and FPL mixing heads from 1977 to 1986, noting rapid growth in FPL sales from zero to 211 units in the first three years, with annual totals remaining above 200 from 1980 to 1984, and reaching 356 and 362 in 1985-86. In contrast, worldwide sales of Afros straight-line mixing heads declined from over 200 in 1977 to 46 in 1985. In the U.S., sales data from 1978-1986 indicated a less dramatic growth for the plaintiff, peaking at 63 units in 1986. Sales figures were further categorized into mixing head units and complete dispensing systems, which included additional equipment. Testimony indicated the increased gross income from FPL sales was partly due to these accompanying equipment sales.
Defendant argues that the success of Afros is primarily due to the '515 recirculation grooves in the FPL mixing head and questions the linkage of FPL head sales to the '335 Patent. However, the defendant provided no evidence beyond sales figures to support this claim. Comparatively, defendant's sales of UL mixing heads were significantly lower. The plaintiff's sales data alone does not establish commercial success due to the lack of a direct connection to the claimed invention. Nonetheless, two key points support the conclusion of commercial success: first, expert testimony indicated that the polyurethane molded product market remained static while FPL sales grew; second, the FPL head replaced several competing heads, demonstrating its unique capability to produce items that straight-line heads could not. The court finds the plaintiff's evidence credible, establishing that the strong commercial success of the FPL heads is primarily attributable to the '335 Patent.
Mr. Schneider's testimony highlights the '335 Patent's effective solution to a long-standing industry issue, which reinforces its nonobviousness. The patent addresses a recognized need, distinguishing it from unsuccessful attempts by competitors, and is supported by expert acknowledgment of its significant advancement. Schneider corroborates Dr. Fiorentini's assertion that the design produces unexpected results by minimizing transient phenomena and enhancing mixing at the injection point, demonstrating the invention's innovative nature. The prior art fails to suggest a short mixing chamber combined with inlet nozzles near the discharge chamber, which not only reduces the mixing chamber length but also simplifies maintenance. The unexpected advantages provided by the '335 Patent contribute to its nonobviousness. The legal standard for assessing obviousness, as clarified by the Federal Circuit, requires evaluating the invention from the perspective of a person skilled in the art at the time of invention, considering all evidence to determine if it would have been obvious. The prior art must be examined as a whole, noting that obviousness cannot be claimed merely by combining existing teachings without sufficient motivation. The unique placement of inlet nozzles "close to" the discharge chamber is a crucial distinction from prior art, which does not adequately address this aspect despite acknowledging other features of the '335 Patent.
Prior art reveals a mixing chamber designed to be as narrow as possible to facilitate component impingement. Testimony regarding the L-shape of the mixing chamber and the positioning of inlet nozzles presents conflicting views on their influence on mixing efficacy. Mr. Schneider, with patents in high-pressure mixing heads, asserts that the '128 and '335 Patents share principles of impingement mixing due to their L-shape, but he later claims the simplicity of the '335 Patent's solution stymied industry adoption. This contradiction undermines the argument that prior art rendered the invention obvious while also acknowledging the patent as an advancement in polyurethane mixing technology. The Court has previously favored Mr. Schneider's insights on the '335 Patent’s design advantages, necessitating the dismissal of his inconsistent views on prior art disclosures.
Expert opinions on fluid dynamics vary significantly. Dr. Macosko, while recognizing that creating "back pressure" can be achieved with an L-shape, does not find additional benefits from a short chamber design or nozzle placement. His testimony is grounded in general fluid dynamics principles rather than specific experience with L-shaped heads. Conversely, Dr. Garris argues that the L-shape combined with a short mixing chamber optimally uses energy from the inlet nozzle placement to enhance mixing, although he initially questioned the short chamber’s efficacy until visualization tests demonstrated its impact. Both experts have limitations in their expertise regarding polyurethane mixing heads, affecting the weight of their testimonies. Dr. Macosko's views conflict with Mr. Schneider's regarding nozzle placement, failing to acknowledge the extra mixing from the short chamber and L-shape interaction.
In assessing expert testimonies regarding the effect of mixing chamber length on component mixing, objective evidence from product tests supports Dr. Garris' claims. The defendant provided samples from tests comparing short and long mixing chambers in L-shaped heads, confirming the practical implications of their designs.
A comparison was made between two mixing head samples, one with a 13-millimeter chamber length (DX 197) and the other with a 62-millimeter length (DX 199). The short mixing chamber has a length-diameter ratio of 1.63:1, while the longer one has a ratio of 7.88:1, with all other conditions being the same. Sales engineer Mr. Guenther Mueller testified that there is no significant difference in mixing quality between the two samples. In contrast, Mr. Richard Werner, Cannon's Product Development Manager, asserted that the longer mixing chamber sample would be rejected by automotive manufacturers due to defects such as dull surface spots and edge shrinkage of the polyurethane foam. The Court closely examined the evidence and found that the defects identified by Mr. Werner were absent in the short mixing chamber sample. Consequently, the Court credited Mr. Werner's testimony regarding the defects in the long mixing chamber, concluding it would not meet industry standards.
The Court found that the evidence supported the efficacy of the short mixing chamber, contradicting the defendant's argument that mixing chamber length does not improve mixing. Testimonies from experts were evaluated, leading to the rejection of Dr. Macosko's views in favor of Dr. Garris'. The analysis of prior art and expert testimony indicated that the claimed invention in the '335 Patent, specifically the inlet nozzle location and short mixing chamber, was not obvious. The success of the FPL head in the market and its responsiveness to industry needs further supported a conclusion of nonobviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of validity of the patent, relying mainly on prior art language without addressing secondary considerations. The Court emphasized that the perspective of a person skilled in the art at the time of invention must be applied, concluding that the '335 Patent was not obvious based on the presented evidence. Additionally, it referenced the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 regarding definiteness in patent claims.
Claims 1 and 6 of the '335 Patent are challenged for indefiniteness due to insufficient specification of the inlet nozzles' location relative to the discharge chamber, described as "close to" or "in close proximity to." The defendant argues this ambiguity prevents a clear understanding of the mixing chamber's dimensions, particularly the length-diameter ratio, rendering the claims invalid. Indefiniteness is assessed legally, requiring the challenger to provide clear and convincing evidence that the patent fails to meet statutory requirements. The court evaluates whether the claims, in light of the specifications, adequately inform those skilled in the art regarding the invention's scope and usability without necessitating undue experimentation.
The '335 Patent's Summary of the Invention emphasizes the flow arrangement that minimizes discharge duct length by ensuring material flow impacts the opposite wall, thus optimizing dimensions and weight. However, the operation details, including the effect of swirl and the mixing piston’s rapid retraction, are not explicitly linked to the inlet nozzles' positioning. Testimony revealed the inlet nozzles' exact location is not determinable in absolute terms, leading to variability in mixing chamber lengths for different head diameters. Expert witnesses indicated that the length should generally not exceed five diameters and that turbulent flow dissipates within two diameters post-impingement. The term "close" is recognized as relative, and additional inlet ports may be included for components like color injection.
The addition of a component that interacts with polyol and isocyanate in the mixing chamber affects the chamber's length. Testimony indicated that the design of the mixing piston seal influences the positioning of inlet nozzles and overall chamber length. Specifically, if sealing grooves are present, the area between the inlet nozzles and the piston face increases, necessitating a longer chamber. The inlet nozzles' location remains consistent within a narrow range, close to the discharge chamber. While the '335 Patent does not provide an exact measurement for chamber length, the term "close" must be assessed for specificity under § 112 requirements. In relevant case law, terms like "close proximity" and "tightly" were deemed sufficiently precise based on their context and common usage within the field. The patent emphasizes mixing occurring at the chamber's discharge point, where turbulence enhances the mixing process before transitioning to laminar flow. A person skilled in fluid dynamics would interpret "close" based on their understanding of flow dynamics, estimating that the mixing chamber's length should not exceed two diameters. Although the specific location of the inlet nozzle varies, it is informed by experimental design. The context of the patent clarifies that "close" refers to an optimal distance for effective mixing, guided by fluid dynamics principles and mechanical design knowledge. Thus, "close" signifies the nearest feasible positioning to optimize mixing in both chambers.
Mixing chamber lengths, with inlet nozzles positioned close to the discharge chamber, are limited to a length-diameter ratio of 2:1. The Court concludes that the terms "close" and "in close proximity to" in the '335 Patent claims are sufficiently specific, thus upholding the Patent's validity under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Regarding inequitable conduct, the Defendant claims that the Plaintiff's failure to disclose the Upjohn '299 Patent to the Examiner constitutes inequitable conduct, rendering the '335 Patent unenforceable. While the defense is frequently overstated in patent cases, the Court recognizes a significant question concerning Dr. Fiorentini's non-disclosure. The Plaintiff acknowledges awareness of the Upjohn '299 Patent but contends it is cumulative of previously cited prior art, specifically the '128 Patent.
Proving inequitable conduct requires clear and convincing evidence, supported by two elements: the materiality of the undisclosed information and intent. Materiality is assessed based on whether a reasonable examiner would find the omission significant in deciding to issue the patent. The standard for materiality does not require the prior art to demonstrate anticipation or obviousness. Intent can be inferred from the applicant's knowledge of the prior art's materiality, and gross negligence may be sufficient if it can be shown the applicant should have recognized the reference's relevance. The overall determination of materiality and intent involves a balancing act, with the objective standard focusing on whether a reasonable person would have understood the information's importance.
The degree of intent required for proving inequitable conduct in patent cases is inversely related to the materiality of the information involved; less material information necessitates a higher degree of intent, while more material information requires a lower degree of intent, potentially allowing for gross negligence as sufficient intent. Simple negligence or a mere error in judgment cannot support a finding of inequitable conduct.
Materiality is assessed through the prosecution history of the relevant patent. In this case, Dr. Fiorentini’s Upjohn '299 Patent is evaluated in the context of the '335 Patent's prosecution. The Upjohn '299 Patent is part of the prior art family of L-shape devices, including the '128 and Schneider '874 Patents, but its materiality cannot be solely based on its configuration due to the '128 Patent's comprehensive disclosure of that design. The prosecution history reveals that the Examiner rejected the claims of the '335 Patent, particularly citing the anticipation by the '128 Patent.
Initially, the '335 Patent application included a claim focusing on a mixing head for liquid components. Amendments added claims that attempted to distinguish Dr. Fiorentini's device by emphasizing its continuous mixing and injection features. However, the Examiner maintained that the claims were obvious based on the disclosures of the '128 Patent, which already described a system for continuous fluid communication. Further amendments aimed to clarify aspects of the claims, but the Examiner continued to reference the '128 Patent as a basis for rejections, asserting that the modifications were either obvious or mere design choices.
The '128 Patent describes a mixing and quieting chamber system that operates on a batch feeding basis, as opposed to the continuous feeding process claimed by the present invention. The plaintiff highlighted that the '128 Patent fails to disclose certain features such as the shorter mixing chamber and the location of the inlet nozzles. Subsequent to a rejection, the plaintiff filed a Patent Continuation in September 1980, but the Examiner rejected the claims as obvious based on the '128 Patent, particularly concerning the sizes of the discharge and mixing chambers. During a meeting with the Examiner on May 7, 1981, the plaintiff's patent counsel presented drawings to differentiate Dr. Fiorentini's application from the '515 and '128 Patents. An agreement was reached to amend the claims to illustrate fluid communication between the chambers, which the Examiner considered favorably. The amendment on May 12, 1981, significantly revised Claim 1, with further emphasis on distinguishing the '128 Patent by highlighting the absence of specific inlet nozzle locations, the use of a short mixing chamber, and fluid communication between the chambers. Following additional interviews and the cancellation of Claim 2, the Examiner allowed the application. Throughout the prosecution, various prior art references were cited, including the '128 Patent and others.
In parallel foreign patent applications in countries such as Italy, France, Japan, West Germany, and Great Britain, Dr. Fiorentini did not disclose the Upjohn '299 Patent. The British Patent Office identified the Upjohn '299 Patent as relevant, leading to rejections of Dr. Fiorentini's application based on its similarities to the Upjohn patent. Counsel advised that the characteristics of the Upjohn '299 Patent could potentially anticipate Dr. Fiorentini's invention. The West German application also faced scrutiny and required a reevaluation of claims to address potential citations from the '128 and Upjohn patents.
The amendment of claim 1 in the British application included a proportional relationship concerning the mixing chamber's length and the inlet nozzles' placement near the discharge chamber. This amendment was a response to prior objections related to the Upjohn '299 Patent, which illustrated the claim's construction. Mr. Coloberti suggested the amendment to align with German patent practices. The British Patent issued on October 27, 1982, with the revised claim. Uncertainty exists regarding the Upjohn '299 Patent's impact on foreign patent applications, as KMAG referenced only the '128 Patent against the Fiorentini West German application, and a West German Patent Office decision did not cite the Upjohn '299 Patent. Testimony indicated that the Upjohn '299 Patent's materiality is primarily supported by British Patent Office rejections in 1981, implying its potential significance in U.S. proceedings. However, its materiality is diminished because it was the sole prior art cited, and the British Examiner did not consider the '515 or '128 Patents, which also disclose the relevant L-shape configuration. The rejection based on the Upjohn '299 Patent indicated that the proposed amendments did not sufficiently differentiate Dr. Fiorentini's invention. Ultimately, the amendments regarding inlet nozzle placement and mixing chamber length were adequate to address the Examiner's concerns, but the Upjohn '299 Patent's significance is lessened by the existence of other relevant prior art. For the United States application, the '128 Patent served as the primary basis for rejections.
Defendant contends that the plaintiff's characterization of the '128 Patent as exclusively claiming a batch process for dispensing polyurethane highlights the material relevance of the Upjohn '299 Patent, which similarly details fluid communication between chambers, akin to the '335 Patent. The defendant asserts that the fluid communication feature disclosed in the Upjohn '299 Patent is highly material prior art, while the plaintiff argues it also distinguished the '128 Patent based on two additional features: the short mixing chamber length and the inlet nozzle location. Although the '299 and '128 Patents are largely similar, the former explicitly teaches fluid communication, while the latter describes a batch operation without ruling out fluid communication, as recognized by the Examiner. The Upjohn '299 Patent is thus deemed material for its fluid communication aspect but cumulative regarding other teachings of the '128 Patent.
The prosecution history of the '335 Patent indicates that the Examiner interpreted the '128 Patent as disclosing fluid communication, which remained a significant concern, prompting the requirement for specific claim language. The examination reveals that while the materiality of the Upjohn '299 Patent is relatively low, it introduces the fluid communication principle not clearly presented in the '128 Patent. However, this principle is not central to the main teaching of the '335 Patent, which focuses on the inlet nozzle location to achieve a short mixing chamber.
Regarding intent, Dr. Fiorentini was aware of the Upjohn '299 Patent due to correspondence about a British Patent Office rejection and admitted to reviewing it. The critical issue is whether this knowledge indicates an intention to withhold material prior art or gross negligence. Coloberti, in a deposition, requested Dr. Fiorentini to review the Upjohn '299 Patent, after which Fiorentini deemed it "absolutely irrelevant" compared to other FPL heads. Fiorentini's testimony suggests he viewed the '299 Patent as solely related to frothing polyurethane, and the Court acknowledges that his close involvement in the patent application process may lead to downplaying the significance of other patents.
The Upjohn '299 Patent is deemed not relevant prior art due to its primary focus on frothing, as indicated in its claims and specification. It allows for the removal of a second mixing head for conventional use, raising questions about its direct relevance to Dr. Fiorentini's invention, which combines two chemical components in a single L-shape head. Mere awareness of the Upjohn '299 Patent does not imply intent to withhold material prior art from the Examiner. The Court assesses intent based on whether the patent's materiality was evident. Dr. Fiorentini's reasonable belief in the patent's irrelevance or cumulative nature results in a low inference of intent. Even if his good faith is credible, it does not address the potential for gross negligence in failing to disclose the patent. The objective standard considers whether a reasonable person would recognize the patent as material prior art. The Upjohn '299 Patent's relevance is minimized relative to existing prior art, particularly since its only potential material impact relates to fluid communication between chambers, a principle also applied in the '128 Patent. The Court finds no clear evidence that the Upjohn '299 Patent significantly alters the teachings of the '128 Patent. Although there is negligence in failing to cite the Upjohn '299 Patent, it does not rise to gross negligence, given a reasonable basis for its perceived irrelevance or redundancy. The defendant’s inequitable conduct claim hinges on the British Patent Office rejection and the prosecution history of the '335 Patent, along with testimony suggesting that the '335 Patent claims overlap with both the Upjohn '299 and '128 Patents. The defendant's position is undermined by its contradictory assertions regarding the relationship between these patents.
If the '128 Patent discloses fluid communication as determined by the Examiner, then the Upjohn '299 Patent does not significantly contribute to the prior art regarding fluid communication. The Examiner required specific claim language regarding open fluid communication in the '335 Patent to avoid ambiguity, unlike the '128 Patent, which lacked clarity in its claims and specification. The Court assesses the Upjohn '299 Patent's materiality as prior art for the '335 Patent to be low. Although Dr. Fiorentini failed to cite the Upjohn '299 Patent to the Examiner, his actions did not demonstrate reckless disregard or intent to conceal material prior art. Consequently, the elements of materiality and intent do not constitute inequitable conduct, and the defendant has not met the burden of proof to establish that the '335 Patent is unenforceable due to the plaintiff's actions before the PTO.
Regarding infringement, the plaintiff claims the UL mixing heads infringe Claims 1, 6, 8, and 9 of the '335 Patent. The defendant's main defense focuses on whether the inlet nozzles of the KMAG head are positioned "close" to the discharge chamber as specified in the Patent. To determine infringement, the patentee must demonstrate that the accused devices encompass every element of the claim, requiring a two-step analysis: interpreting the claim language and assessing whether the accused product or process falls within the claim. The Court's interpretation of "close" in Claims 1 and 6 indicates it means as near as possible to facilitate mixing, as understood by a skilled person in fluid dynamics. The length-diameter ratio of the FPL heads ranges from .42 to 1.00, while the UL heads range from .83 to 2.11. Although the defendant argues that the UL heads' larger ratios indicate noninfringement, the similarity in design allows a fair comparison, even though neither party manufactures heads with identical diameters.
The inlet nozzle placement on the defendant's mixing heads is influenced by the use of sealing grooves on the mixing piston, which prevent chemical interaction when the head is closed. These grooves, absent in the '335 Patent and FPL heads, increase the distance between the mixing piston face and recirculation grooves by approximately one and one-half millimeters. This increased distance necessitates that the inlet nozzles be positioned further from the discharge chamber, thereby lengthening the mixing chamber. Consequently, this design difference affects the length-diameter ratio of the mixing chambers between the FPL and UL heads, with the UL heads requiring a longer mixing chamber due to the longer piston stroke.
Testimony indicated that the design choice between using sealing grooves or a highly precisioned piston was practical. Additionally, three alleged infringing devices feature extra inlet ports for adding components like color additives, further extending the mixing chamber length. The defendant failed to provide evidence against the plaintiff's claim that these design features necessitate a longer mixing chamber and greater distance of the inlet nozzles from the discharge chamber. KMC’s argument suggested a potential redesign to match the Afros heads but did not address whether the UL heads’ inlet nozzles are "close" to the discharge chamber as defined in the patent claims.
The length-diameter ratios indicated that the alleged infringing heads are "close" and fall under the '335 Patent Claims, as their design facilitates effective mixing due to the inlet nozzle location. Expert testimony revealed that while an L-shape head could have a length-diameter ratio up to 5:1, most of the defendant's devices are below 2:1. The Court found the differences in mixing chamber length to be minimal and emphasized that the UL heads are not identical to the FPL heads, yet their design, particularly the inlet nozzle placement and mixing chamber length, aligns with the claims of the '335 Patent.
The Court has determined that the defendant has infringed the '335 Patent, noting that the degree of similarity between the UL design and Afros' design is not critical to the infringement finding. Infringement is assessed not by direct comparison of patent descriptions with the accused product but by evaluating commercial embodiments as supportive evidence. The plaintiff has argued for a finding of willful infringement based on the defendant's sales of the infringing UL mixing heads and seeks increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, which allows for damages to be tripled upon a finding of willfulness or bad faith.
To establish willful infringement, the Court relies on a "totality of the circumstances" test, considering factors such as whether the infringer copied another's design, whether they investigated the patent's validity, and their conduct in litigation. Actual notice of the patent imposes a duty of care on the infringer, typically necessitating competent legal advice before infringing. However, the absence of legal counsel's opinion does not automatically imply willful infringement. The similarity between the '335 Patent and the UL mixing heads serves as a basis for evaluating potential willfulness, with the parties having stipulated that the FPL heads align with the patent's description. The plaintiff’s evidence, including transparent overlays of engineering drawings, demonstrates the near-identical design of the heads, reinforcing the Court’s view that the differences are minimal and relevant to the infringement claims.
The defendant's UL mixing heads, while larger, share internal dimensions and configurations closely resembling the plaintiff's product, particularly in chamber size, inlet nozzle location, and recirculation systems. Expert testimony from Dr. Garris, a mechanical engineer, indicated that the UL head's design likely resulted from copying the FPL design, a claim the defendant did not contest or cross-examine. The Court accepts Dr. Garris's opinion regarding this similarity. Additionally, evidence shows that the development process for the UL head did not indicate innovation leading to its final design; instead, KMAG prioritized the project to avoid market losses, focusing on adding a "deflection piece" to the mixing head. Testimonies reveal that the first UL head emerged in 1980, aligning with KMAG's development timeline, and the first sale occurred in late 1982. However, the documents do not clarify how KMAG achieved a design so similar to the FPL head, as their research primarily addressed transient phenomena using external devices rather than innovations within the mixing chamber itself. The beneficial aspect of the '335 Patent design involves controlling transient phenomena with a smaller piston, which was a primary concern for KMAG's development efforts.
The UL heads were developed and released to the market in mid-1982, following a research and development program that did not yield any drawings indicating an original design incorporating a short mixing chamber with a larger discharge chamber. Evidence, including Dr. Garris' unrebutted testimony, suggests that KMAG copied the Afros mixing head after 1980, as supported by the lack of documentation from KMAG showing independent development of the UL heads. KMAG's efforts to protect its market share in high-pressure mixing heads lend credibility to the inference of copying from the successful FPL head.
KMAG was aware of Afros marketing L-shape mixing heads as early as April 19, 1979, when it sent a letter regarding potential patent infringement. Despite follow-up correspondence, there was no response from Afros or Cannon. Afros experienced significant sales growth in 1980 and 1981, coinciding with KMAG's development of its "Mini Mixing Head." KMAG demonstrated knowledge of Afros' patent application in West Germany by filing opposition briefs as early as July 27, 1981. Although the '335 Patent issued on June 1, 1982, there is no evidence of when KMAG became aware of the U.S. patent rights. However, their actions and concern about market share suggest they had notice of the '335 Patent before being sued on June 29, 1984. KMAG's argument that it only learned of the patent at the time of the lawsuit is countered by precedent indicating that prior knowledge of similar products can imply awareness of a corresponding patent, regardless of its issuance.
Willfulness in patent infringement is determined by the totality of circumstances, not just the timing or knowledge of the patent. A finding of willfulness, and any resultant increased damages, cannot occur until the patent is issued. The court dismissed the defendant's claim of lack of notice, noting KMAG's awareness of the FPL heads, their market impact, and prior knowledge of patent processes in other countries. The evidence showed KMAG intentionally copied the FPL design, indicating they could not claim ignorance of competing patent rights, especially given their ongoing awareness of the product and foreign patent matters.
The court established that KMAG and KMC had actual notice of the '335 Patent shortly after its issuance on June 1, 1982. With this notice came a duty of due care, including the obligation to seek competent legal advice. However, KMAG did not demonstrate that it sought legal counsel regarding the '335 Patent before being sued, having only done so two years post-issuance. This delay in seeking legal advice, particularly in response to a lawsuit, failed to satisfy the duty of care expected of an infringer.
Furthermore, KMAG's defensive tactics, including transferring patents to its subsidiary KMC to avoid liability while maintaining control over related documents, suggested willful infringement. KMAG argued that its foreign parent was outside the control of KMC, thereby obstructing discovery. Ultimately, after a court order, KMAG produced critical documents, including engineering drawings and development records, which were relevant to both literal infringement and the willfulness of the infringement. The court emphasized that such documents are typically essential in mechanical patent litigation and should be readily available for discovery.
The patent assignment and the refusal to produce non-party foreign parent documents are not inherently illegitimate; however, they seem aimed at obstructing the plaintiff's case and concealing evidence pertinent to establishing infringement and willfulness. The defendant's resistance to discovery, while not uncommon, was specifically designed to hinder access to crucial evidence, impacting the willfulness determination. The court will factor in the defendant's litigation conduct, which leans towards a finding of willful infringement. The evidence indicates a significant degree of willfulness due to the defendant's copying of the FPL design and a lack of evidence regarding their efforts to avoid infringing the '335 Patent. Consequently, the court finds willful infringement and is inclined to triple the plaintiff's actual damages.
Regarding attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, the court may award fees in "exceptional" cases, which requires a factual determination. Factors influencing this classification include the case's closeness and the parties' conduct. The finding of willful infringement through copying could qualify the case as exceptional, allowing for the discretion to award attorney fees. The defendant's additional tactics indicating reluctance to cooperate with the plaintiff further support this determination.
The Court ordered the production of KMAG documents related to the UL head development and engineering drawings. Initially, the defendant limited discovery to an office inspection, but after the plaintiff's motion to compel, an agreement was reached to allow copying of the drawings with sensitive information redacted. This agreement was made five weeks before the pretrial conference. The defendant later attempted to add two witnesses regarding the patent assignment issue just before the trial, necessitating mid-trial depositions, despite having prior notice of the assignment issue at the pretrial conference. Additionally, the defendant's primary expert was unprepared for deposition three weeks before the trial, but the defendant still sought to have him testify, leading to a limited agreement during the trial.
During the trial, the plaintiff made discovery requests to verify statements from the defendant’s witnesses, which were granted despite the defendant's objections. The required documents, including research records and engineering drawings, significantly supported the plaintiff's case. The only disputed issue was inequitable conduct regarding the failure to cite the Upjohn '299 Patent; however, there was no evidence that the defendant was aware of this during the infringement period of the '335 Patent. The Court found the case to be exceptional under § 285, influenced by the defendant's obstructive behavior throughout the litigation, which necessitated the plaintiff overcoming undue challenges to protect its rights. Consequently, the Court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's reasonable attorney fees.
Regarding the KMC patents, the defendant counterclaimed that the FPL heads infringed its '128 and '515 Patents. The Court determined that the assignment of these patents to KMC after the litigation commenced was valid under West German law but invalid under U.S. patent law, preventing KMC from filing counterclaims due to lack of ownership at the time. Further analysis confirmed that while the '128 and '515 Patents were valid, they were not infringed. The plaintiff originally sued KMAG and KMC on June 29, 1984, prompting KMAG to file motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. KMAG assigned the patents to KMC on September 14, 1984, and KMC filed its counterclaims shortly thereafter. The Court inferred that this assignment was motivated by the ongoing lawsuit but did not find the assignment invalid.
The validity of the assignment of patents from KMAG to KMC is contested, particularly concerning KMC's standing to assert a counterclaim under 35 U.S.C. § 281. The plaintiff contends that the assignment is invalid due to improper execution under West German law, arguing that KMC is not a legitimate owner or assignee of the relevant patents. Mr. Manfred Petersen, then General Manager of KMAG's urethane production plant, initiated the counterclaim without consulting other KMAG officers or the KMC Board, and the assignment was prepared and executed in Munich.
Under West German law, an Aktiengesellschaft must have documents signed by two managing board members, or by two prokurists. Mr. Rucker, who signed the document, holds a limited commercial power of attorney, while Mr. Petersen and Mr. Hingst were joint prokurists, but only Petersen signed the assignment. The law requires specific notations ("PPA" for prokurists and "i.V." for commercial power of attorney) which were not included. Despite these formalities, West German law states that failure to comply does not invalidate the transaction, and the intent of the signatories at the time of signing is critical. KMAG's bylaws allow signatures from joint prokurists to bind the corporation, but Mr. Hingst was unaware of the assignment until months later. Experts agree that Petersen and Rucker did not execute the assignment in accordance with statutory powers of corporate representation.
The transaction's validity is supported by agency law principles, specifically recognizing express and implied agency powers for corporate officers to bind the corporation. The West German Supreme Court acknowledges both joint prokurist and commercial powers of attorney in this context. Although there is no direct evidence of express authority, documents related to unrelated patent transfers, signed by Messrs. Petersen and Rucker, indicate they acted together to bind the corporation.
Mr. Petersen's signature, accompanied by the title "General Manager," suggests he signed in an official capacity, and despite his lack of memory regarding the signature, his testimony was deemed credible in demonstrating his intent to bind KMAG. The primary question revolves around Mr. Rucker's intent in signing the assignment. His signature includes the title "Secretary," which is not his corporate position, and the term "Attest," which lacks a clear equivalent in West German corporate law and raises questions about its meaning.
The assignment's language does not clearly indicate whether Mr. Rucker intended to exercise his commercial power of attorney, as it neither specifies his official position nor uses the "i.V." designation. His testimony about his intent is inconsistent, stating at one point he hadn’t discussed the document before signing and later claiming he had reviewed it with counsel. Mr. Rucker acknowledged he believed the assignment valid under both American and German law, yet he expressed reservations about its validity and indicated uncertainty regarding the intent behind the ambiguous "Attest" term. His previous experience with a similar document, where he signed as a witness without using "i.V.," further complicates his credibility. The Court ultimately finds his statements regarding his intent to exercise commercial power of attorney lack credibility.
Mr. Rucker's understanding of his signature's sufficiency for an assignment under U.S. patent law was flawed, as he was unaware of the legal requirements until after the assignment. The evidence indicates that he signed as a witness rather than as a corporate agent, demonstrating he did not intend to utilize his commercial power of attorney for the assignment. Consequently, under West German law, the initial assignment was not valid. However, West German law allows for the ratification of transactions that fall outside an officer's authority. A transaction can be in a state of "pending validity," where it remains neither valid nor invalid until ratified. On January 8, 1987, two KMAG Managing Board members ratified the assignment, which is recognized as valid under the West German Commercial Code. Additionally, Mr. Hingst's failure to object to the assignment on April 29, 1985, is argued to constitute ratification. The specific date of ratification (whether April 29, 1985, or January 8, 1987) does not alter the fact that the assignment became valid post-September 19, 1984. Thus, despite Mr. Rucker's initial oversight, the corporation's subsequent approval rendered the transaction valid under West German law.
Under U.S. law, specifically 35 U.S.C. § 281, a plaintiff must be the owner of the patent to sue for infringement. The criteria for distinguishing between an assignment and a license are outlined in *Waterman v. Mackenzie*, where an assignment can involve the whole patent, a share, or exclusive rights within a specified area, granting the assignee the right to sue infringers. Any transfer that does not meet these criteria constitutes a mere license, which does not confer title or the right to sue for infringement.
In equity and at law, when a patent transfer constitutes only a license, the original patent owner retains title, and any legal actions must be initiated in the owner's name, unless necessary to prevent a failure of justice, such as when the patentee is the infringer. Licensee rights must be enforced through the patent owner, who may join the licensee as a plaintiff if needed. The distinction between an assignment and a license hinges on whether all patent rights have been assigned; failing to assign all rights bars an infringement claim unless the patent owner is a party to the suit. The designation of the transaction does not determine its nature.
In a specific case, a patent cross-license agreement between KMAG and Elastogran concerning the '128 and '515 Patents suggests KMAG has not fully assigned rights to KMC, as KMAG continues to receive royalties from Elastogran for sales, including in the U.S. However, retaining royalties does not automatically classify the agreement as a license. The primary rights under a patent include exclusivity, transfer, and the right to sue for infringement. The assignment document appears to transfer all rights in the patents to KMC, including the right to sue.
The cross-license predates the assignment, and there is no evidence presented showing retained rights by KMAG post-assignment. The transfer seems to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 261, thus should be interpreted as an assignment unless proven otherwise. A critical issue remains whether KMC had standing to file an infringement counterclaim on September 19, 1984, as they must be the assignee or patent owner at that time to sue under 35 U.S.C. § 281. Limiting infringement suit rights to those holding all patent rights aims to ensure comprehensive dispute resolution and protect patent owners’ rights, as well as public access to innovation. The Supreme Court emphasized that allowing nonowners to litigate could result in frivolous lawsuits instigated by patent holders without incurring costs. An example is given where patent owners attempted to assign rights after infringement litigation had already begun, which was addressed in a Sixth Circuit case.
The plaintiff's ability to recover damages hinges on their standing at the time the lawsuit was initiated; a lack of a valid cause of action at that moment is a critical flaw that cannot be remedied by acquiring a cause of action later. An agreement to assign the right to sue for patent infringement retroactively is ineffective for establishing standing. The legal principle dictates that only patent owners and their assignees may initiate infringement lawsuits. Courts do not typically investigate the motivations behind assignments, provided they meet the statutory criteria of 35 U.S.C. § 261. However, in this case, the assignment in question was invalid under West German law at the time KMC filed its counterclaim on September 19, 1984, as it was only "pending validity." Although West German law allows for ratification to relate back to the original transaction date, this principle cannot be used to remedy a defect in an assignment that was legally ineffective when the infringement action was initiated. The concept of relation back is meant to create enforceable obligations but does not override the standing requirements prescribed by U.S. patent law. Courts maintain that a nonexclusive licensee cannot sue for infringement without including the patent owner, assignee, or exclusive licensee in the lawsuit. Allowing an invalid assignment to retroactively confer standing would improperly broaden the scope of individuals eligible to sue for infringement and could disadvantage domestic patent owners. Consequently, as of September 19, 1984, KMC's counterclaim could not proceed because their assignment was not valid, and subsequent acts cannot retroactively rectify this lack of standing under U.S. patent law.
The retroactive effect of an assignment on a party’s standing to bring an infringement claim has been rarely addressed, with no guidance from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Consequently, the Court will evaluate substantive patent law issues regarding the '128 and '515 Patents to resolve the parties' disputes.
Regarding the validity of the '515 and '128 Patents, the Court acknowledges the presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282, which places the burden of proof on the plaintiff to establish invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. The plaintiff contends that the '515 Patent is invalid due to simultaneous invention of recirculation grooves, while asserting that the '128 Patent is inoperative based on its illustrative figures.
For the '515 Patent, evidence presented was minimal. The plaintiff relied on a witness's statements about inventorship and an uncited prior art patent, while the defendant emphasized the presumption of validity. Although the parties did not directly address the four-factor John Deere test for obviousness, the existing record is deemed sufficient for analysis.
The prior art in question includes the Baumgartner Patent (U.S. Patent No. 3,674,398), which predates the '515 Patent and focuses on a scavenging system for injection-molding machines. The Baumgartner Patent describes methods for cleaning residual materials from mixing chambers but does not address the recirculation of polyol and isocyanate. The only potential recirculating material mentioned is the scavenging agent, which, if compressed air, is discharged into the atmosphere after use. Testimony from Mr. Fritz Schneider indicated he worked on a recirculation concept in 1971, which is relevant to the development in question.
Mr. Schneider confirmed that when he joined Elastogran in 1971, he independently developed a mixing head principle, although he noted that others were involved. He stated that their work was independent of any developments at Krauss-Maffei, of which they were unaware. The testimony indicates that while recirculation presented significant industry challenges, Schneider's comments pertain to developments after the filing of the '515 Patent, which cannot be considered prior art. The court found no evidence of prior knowledge regarding recirculation grooves beyond the Baumgartner '398 Patent.
Key differences between the '515 Patent and Baumgartner '398 include the latter's lack of high-pressure recirculation of chemical components. While both patents allow some operation after closing, Baumgartner's system is unrelated to polyurethane production and does not recirculate the scavenging agent, contrasting with the high-pressure recirculation disclosed in the '515 Patent. The '515 Patent addresses component recirculation, while Baumgartner focuses on cleaning residual material.
Secondary considerations regarding the obviousness of the '515 Patent were noted but not thoroughly addressed by the parties. Evidence indicated that the market accepted the '515 Patent, as it replaced KMAG mixing heads with FPL heads. However, the defendant failed to provide quantifiable evidence of sales or profits, limiting the credibility of commercial success claims. Additionally, the similarity in recirculation grooves between the '515 and '335 Patents suggests the utility of the '515 Patent but lacks substantial supporting evidence from the defendant.
Information on the ordinary skill in the art was limited to the context of the '335 Patent, covering the period from 1970 to 1977.
The Court determined that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field would have a mechanical engineering degree, experience in mechanical design, and some knowledge of fluid dynamics. It noted that the challenges between 1968 and 1970, when the '515 Patent was created, differed from those faced by Dr. Fiorentini, particularly because high-pressure mixing heads had not yet been introduced. Despite evolving methods, the need for effective high-pressure mixing heads remained unchanged during this period. The Court asserted that the level of ordinary skill in the art had not significantly progressed between the '515 and '335 patents due to the stability of basic high-pressure mixing principles.
The key issue was whether the Baumgartner '398 Patent rendered the '515 Patent obvious. The Plaintiff contended that the '398 Patent disclosed recirculation grooves in the mixing piston and cited inventor reports from Mr. Rudi Keuerleber and Mr. Fritz-Wilhelm Pahl, who claimed full contribution to the '515 Patent. Additionally, Mr. Schneider indicated that Elastrogran developed a recirculation system around 1971. However, the Court found that the Baumgartner '398 Patent focused on a cleaning system rather than a true high-pressure recirculation system, undermining the Plaintiff's argument regarding obviousness. Mr. Schneider's testimony was deemed vague and unsupported, lacking clarity on results or evidence of simultaneous invention. While the statements from Keuerleber and Pahl offered some evidence, the Court concluded that these claims were insufficient, given their concurrent employment at KMAG and the lack of detailed development information. The Plaintiff was required to prove obviousness by clear and convincing evidence, which was not accomplished merely through claims of independent inventorship.
Secondary evidence, while limited in weight, supports the nonobviousness of the '515 Patent, which the Court finds not proven obvious by prior art. Concerning the '128 Patent, the plaintiff contends that its figures depict an inoperative device, thereby violating the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The figures show two key flaws: first, the recirculation grooves (21 and 22) are positioned to fill with hydraulic fluid, contaminating the components; second, the pump placements (27 and 18) on the return lines create a vacuum, preventing proper injection of components. Under § 112, a patent must enable a skilled person to make and use the invention, and while some experimentation may be necessary, the plaintiff fails to cite any claim language that reflects the alleged deficiencies in the figures. Claim 1 describes a mechanism for injecting reactive components, and Claim 2 mentions a piston with recirculation passages, but the specification does not address the pumps' placement or the grooves' retraction. The presence of inaccuracies in the figures alone does not prove inoperativeness or lack of sufficient specification. Testimony indicated that the pump design is not critical to the patent, which primarily focuses on the head configuration and dual cleaning pistons. The Court concludes that a skilled person would use the figures as a general guide rather than as definitive representations of the invention.
Figures that are inoperative or not explicitly described in a patent do not, by themselves, prove inoperativeness or an inadequate specification under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. The plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the invalidity of the '128 Patent. The defendant claims that the FPL heads infringe both the '515 and '128 Patents literally and under the doctrine of equivalents. To establish literal infringement, the court follows a two-step process: first, interpreting the claim language; second, determining if the claims apply to the accused device. If literal infringement is not established, infringement may still be found if the accused product performs substantially the same function in a similar manner to achieve the same result, as stated in Graver Tank. However, the doctrine of equivalents is constrained by the prosecution history, which may prevent a patent owner from claiming a broader interpretation that encompasses subject matter surrendered during the patent application process.
For the '128 Patent, the first issue involves the interpretation of the claims regarding the placement of inlet nozzles and the length of the mixing chamber. Claim 1 specifies that the nozzles are located diametrically opposed but does not define their distance from the discharge chamber. The operational description in the specification clarifies that polyisocyanate and polyol are introduced through specific inlets into a closed mixing chamber, suggesting that the mixing chamber must be sufficiently long to produce workpieces of consistent characteristics. The recommended batch process implies a substantial length for the mixing chamber, as illustrated in Figures 1, 5, and 6 of the Patent, which depict a relatively long mixing chamber. Additionally, the inlet nozzles are typically positioned close to the mixing piston to facilitate flow toward the discharge chamber; greater distances would increase the length-diameter ratio of the chamber.
The claims, specification, and figures of the patent reveal a single design applicable for both batch and continuous operations, with Claim 1 detailing a structure for producing polyurethane. The Court interprets the Claims as requiring the inlet nozzles to be positioned at a sufficient distance from the discharge chamber to ensure an adequately sized mixing chamber for batch processing. A critical issue in claim interpretation relates to the sizes of the chambers. Claim 1 mandates that the discharge chamber has a cross-sectional area equal to that of the mixing chamber, but its width must exceed that of the inlet opening from the mixing chamber. Claim 9 echoes this language, while Claim 8 specifies that the chambers can have substantially equal cross-sectional areas. Dependent Claims 5 and 6 further describe the discharge chambers as rectangular and circular, respectively.
There is an apparent internal inconsistency regarding cylindrical chambers since the requirement for equal cross-sectional areas contradicts the stipulation that the discharge chamber's width must be greater than that of the mixing chamber. The Defendant does not dispute this inconsistency if "equal" is defined as requiring a uniform cross-sectional area. The interpretation of "equal" in Claims 1 and 9 is contentious; the Defendant suggests it should mean "at least equal to," referring to the specification, while the Plaintiff argues for a strict interpretation necessitating identical sizes for the chambers. The specification notes that the chambers' cross-sectional areas should be "at least the same size," and it is critical that the volumes displaced by both pistons during operation are equal. The prosecution history provides additional context, indicating that the original claims did not specify the discharge chamber's width being larger than the mixing chamber's opening, leading to a rejection of those claims as anticipated by prior art.
On October 10, 1975, the Defendant amended claims to specify that the discharge chamber's cross-section must be larger than that of the inlet from the mixing chamber. This amendment was intended to clarify the invention and describe the discharge chamber's calming effect on the flow into the mold. In a subsequent discussion with the Examiner on December 12, 1975, the Defendant faced ongoing patentability issues regarding prior art. Additional amendments were made, with the Defendant asserting that the claims distinguish from prior art, specifically the Roddy patent. The amendments highlighted structural differences, including the requirement that the opening from the mixing chamber to the quieting chamber be narrower than the uniform cross-section of the quieting chamber, enabling effective high-velocity mixing without compromising the molded product.
On December 29, 1975, the Examiner mandated further amendments to claims 1 and 9, specifying that their cross-sectional areas be equal to that of the mixing chamber. The Patent and Trademark Office issued a Notice of Allowance on February 17, 1976. The final amendment aimed to address the patentability concerns related to the Roddy patent by clearly defining the sizes of the chambers. However, a question arose regarding whether "equal" restricts the patent to chambers with identical cross-sectional areas. The specifications do not clarify this term, and the Examiner specifically required the equal cross-section language. The Defendant's claim that "equal" should be interpreted as "at least equal to" is deemed incorrect, as the language does not support ambiguity. The final amendment imposes a limitation on Claim 1, as the cross-sectional areas cannot be equal if the chambers are of different dimensions.
Claims detailed in figure 4 describe a design featuring chambers with equal cross-sections formed by rectangular chambers. The court maintains that an amendment restricting a claim does not alter the clarity of the language. The defendant's assertion that Claim 8, as a dependent claim specifying "substantially equal" chambers, implies that "equal" in Claim 1 means "at least equal to" is incorrect. The Federal Circuit's precedent emphasizes that limitations cannot be inferred from dependent claims to circumvent infringement, as the independent claim's language must be interpreted consistently. Claim 1 is interpreted as "equal" in its standard definition.
The FPL heads do not infringe the '128 Patent for two reasons: first, the inlet nozzles of the plaintiff's product are positioned closer to the discharge chamber than those disclosed in the patent, which specifies a greater distance to enable both batch processing and fluid communication; second, the FPL devices have mixing and discharge chambers with unequal cross-sections, with the discharge chamber at least 30% wider, thus failing to meet the '128 Patent's requirement for equal cross-sectional areas.
Under the doctrine of equivalents, infringement requires proof that the accused device meets the Graver Tank "function, way, and result" test. A patent's range of equivalents may be constrained by its prosecution history, particularly when amendments limit the claims' coverage. The specifics of each case determine whether a patentee is estopped from reclaiming parts of a prior claim. The '128 Patent originally disclosed an L-shaped device but did not specify chamber sizes. After an initial rejection, the defendant amended the language to distinguish its patent from prior art, specifically noting that the quiescent chamber had a wider cross-section than the inlet from the mixing chamber. Further amendments were made in response to concerns from the Examiner regarding the accuracy of chamber size descriptions.
The undersigned included a definition in the specification stating that the quieting chamber is wider than the opening. The Examiner required an addition to Claim 1, specifying that the cross-sectional area of the discharge chamber must equal that of the mixing chamber. The defendant's amendments attempted to claim a discharge chamber with a greater cross-sectional area, but the substitution of "width" for "cross-section" introduced limitations, necessitating equal cross-sectional areas. This refinement aimed to differentiate the patent from prior art, resulting in a narrow range of equivalents for the '128 Patent. The FPL heads do not infringe the '128 Patent as their mixing and discharge chambers have different cross-sections, and the defendant cannot reclaim a previously abandoned claim regarding chambers of greater cross-sectional area. The prosecution history has restricted the scope of the '128 Patent, leading to the conclusion that the FPL heads fall outside its range of equivalents.
Regarding the '515 Patent, the defendant seeks a broader interpretation because it is deemed a "pioneer" patent in high-pressure mixing heads. The critical language in Claim 1 mentions a "housing means forming a mixing chamber" with a control slide. The FPL heads use recirculation grooves similar to those in the '515 Patent, but the claim's singular phrasing and the specification's description imply a single elongated chamber. The figures consistently depict a device with one chamber for housing the slide valve and discharging polyurethane. Thus, the Court concludes that the FPL heads, featuring dual chambers at a 90° angle, do not literally infringe the '515 Patent, although the "pioneer" status may be relevant for evaluating infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
Defendant's argument regarding literal infringement does not alter the legal analysis of patent claims. Pioneer patents enjoy broad protection, yet the defendant provided insufficient evidence to support the pioneer status of the '515 Patent, relying solely on generalized claims about the use of recirculation grooves in the industry. The record lacks specific evidence of prior inventions or the '515 Patent's advancements in the field. The patent pertains specifically to single chamber mixing heads and does not cover the L-shaped design of the FPL heads, leading the Court to conclude that the FPL heads do not literally infringe the '515 Patent.
In the conclusion, the Court determined that: 1) the '335 Patent is valid, and the defendant failed to demonstrate inequitable conduct during its issuance; 2) the defendant's devices infringe claims 1, 6, 8, and 9 of the '335 Patent, with the infringement being willful; 3) due to the willfulness, the Court will award triple damages to the plaintiff under 35 U.S.C. § 284; 4) the case is deemed exceptional, warranting the plaintiff's reasonable attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285; 5) the assignment of patent rights to the defendant was ineffective for bringing a counterclaim on September 19, 1984; and 6) alternatively, the '515 and '128 Patents are valid but not infringed by the plaintiff's devices. The plaintiff is instructed to prepare a proposed order for filing within twenty days, with specific procedures outlined for any disagreements over the order's form.
Determination under Section 103 involves analyzing both facts and law. Key factual considerations include the disclosures of prior art patents, the practical understanding of those disclosures by professionals in the field, differences between prior art and the claimed invention, the enabling capabilities of those differences, the unsuccessful attempts by others to create the invention, instances of copying, and evidence of commercial success. The independent claims of the Upjohn '299 Patent describe a method for frothing a low boiling point liquid propellant with other components to create foamed material, detailing the steps of injecting components under pressure, mixing in two cylindrical chambers, and discharging the final mix for expansion. Additionally, frothing polyurethane requires injecting a third component outside the mixing chamber to avoid explosive expansion, which occurs if the propellant is added directly. The Upjohn patent highlights that this method allows for controlled foaming, essential for producing the final polyurethane product.
A high-pressure mixing and injection apparatus is designed for discharging mixed multi-component plastics, particularly polyurethane, in a stabilized jet. It consists of several mixing assemblies, each featuring a cylindrical mixing chamber with in-feed and return flow ports for the components. Piston means within the chambers control the flow of these components, allowing for both mixing and closure of ports to facilitate transverse component flow. The mixing chambers are connected to a larger transfer cylinder that allows unobstructed flow through outlet ports. An ejector piston is positioned within the transfer cylinder, with the axes of the mixing chambers and their pistons arranged symmetrically and radially toward the transfer cylinder's axis, ensuring equal angles between adjacent axes.
The document notes that a batch process necessitates the mixing chamber's volume to be adequate for filling the product mold, as the rapid polymerization of polyurethane does not allow for additional components to be added after a brief period. The '335 Patent allows for a frothing agent's introduction through a specific port, differing from the Upjohn '299 Patent, which focuses solely on the frothing method. Testimony from KMC’s Reaction Injection Molding Division manager indicated that the '128 Patent does not specify the distance of inlet nozzles from the discharge chamber.
Sales figures for various models of FPL and UL heads through 1986 are provided, indicating total North American sales. Cannon's sales of FPL heads and dispensing systems significantly grew, although the plaintiff did not provide detailed breakdowns or evidence of market share. The plaintiff conducted tests comparing the '335 Patent design with the '128 Patent design, but the tests posed evidentiary challenges, including incomplete results and lack of proper foundation for the testing method, leading the Court to disregard the Aachen Test results in its conclusions on obviousness. Lastly, the defendant did not present expert testimony regarding the interpretation of the terms "close" and "in close proximity."
The plaintiff contends that the court's earlier ruling of non-obviousness should dictate whether the Upjohn '299 Patent counts as material prior art concerning the '335 Patent. The Federal Circuit has established that if a reference does not anticipate or render a patent obvious, the threshold for materiality is not satisfied, as illustrated in Laitram Corp. v. Cambridge Wire Cloth Co. and Carella v. Starlight Archery. Both cases affirmed district courts' findings of no inequitable conduct; however, they do not imply that undisclosed prior art automatically avoids citation requirements if it does not anticipate or render obvious a patent. The standards for anticipation, obviousness, and inequitable conduct are related but distinct, implying that a district court need not assess undisclosed art for anticipation or obviousness when evaluating inequitable conduct. The defendant acknowledges that the plaintiff lacked knowledge of the Schneider '874 Patent during prosecution and does not claim the omission constitutes inequitable conduct. Additionally, the document outlines the distinguishing characteristics of U.S. Patent No. 3,975,128, emphasizing its batch mixing apparatus compared to the plaintiff's continuous mixing and injecting device, which aims to mitigate transient phenomena impacting stoichiometric relations and enhance mixing efficiency.
The shortening of the mixing chamber leads to a reduced piston stroke and overall head dimensions. Claims 1 and 9 are asserted to be patentable over the '128 Patent, and their allowance is requested. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103, citing Schluter as prior art. The Schluter Patent describes a system for continuously mixing and ejecting components into a mold, featuring various ducts and valves. The Examiner deemed the shorter mixing chamber length to be an obvious design choice for someone skilled in the field.
Dr. Fiorentini contested this rejection, arguing that Schluter describes a batch processing operation rather than a continuous feeding system. He referenced specific lines from Schluter indicating that the reaction occurs entirely within the mixing chamber before ejection, emphasizing that the system blocks fluid communication between the mixing and quieting chambers during material mixing. The argument underscores that Schluter does not suggest that these chambers communicate while materials are added, reinforcing the notion of batch feeding as opposed to continuous feeding. Additionally, Dr. Fiorentini pointed out that the Examiner's reliance on Schluter's specifications overlooked key details, particularly regarding the cross-sectional area of the quieting chamber compared to the mixing chamber.
The document outlines key technical distinctions between the invention and prior art, specifically contrasting features of the '128 Patent and the patented invention by Dr. Fiorentini. It emphasizes that both pistons in the prior art, as noted in Schluter, have equal stroke lengths and cross-sectional areas, resulting in equal volumes of displacement. The arrangement of inlets in Schluter's design requires that the volume of the mixing chamber match the workpiece volume, restricting the size of workpieces that can be molded. In contrast, Fiorentini's invention allows for independent positioning of inlets relative to the exit port, enabling greater flexibility in workpiece volume, which can exceed the combined volumes of the mixing chamber and channel.
Further, the document illustrates differences in chamber designs through appended drawings. The first figure depicts a mixing chamber with a high turbulence output, while the second figure presents an improved design with aligned injection and mixing zones. The invention introduces a pre-mixing chamber with a small diameter and short length, and a larger mixing zone at a 90-degree angle, which optimizes the mixing process. The claims of the invention are argued to be non-obvious in light of Schluter, as the specific features and their arrangements have not been previously suggested.
The small diameter of section M1 enhances the atomizing effect, improving the mixing of components and their chemical reactions. Additionally, altering the flux direction near the inlets, where kinetic energy and turbulence are high, further enhances mixing quality. This improvement is not achievable in Reference A due to the greater distance of the quieting section M3 from the component inlets. The design illustrated in Appendix B shows that particles A and B rebound off the walls of section M2, increasing their interaction and reaction probability before exiting through the discharge duct at a lower velocity.
The final amendment accompanying the application specifies that fluid communication is maintained between the discharge duct during the entire period of component feeding into the mixing chamber, a feature not present in the '128 Patent or Reference B (Schiraki et al.). Therefore, the claims are argued to be non-obvious compared to the cited references.
The excerpt also mentions several foreign patent applications related to the '335 Patent, including filings in Italy, Japan, France, Great Britain, and West Germany. While a West German patent was granted to the plaintiff, KMAG sought to nullify the corresponding Utility Model. An initial adverse ruling in 1982 was later overturned by a West German court in favor of the plaintiff, but the court did not consider the implications of this decision in the inequitable conduct defense.
Mr. Schneider testified regarding the similarities between the '335 Patent and the '299 and '128 Patents, suggesting that they are cumulative, although the court does not fully accept his testimony. Nonetheless, it acknowledges the shared disclosures among the three patents.
Length-diameter ratios for various mixing heads are provided, showing specific values for MK and FPL types. The parties’ pretrial stipulation confirms that FPL mixing heads align with the '335 Patent, making the engineering drawings relevant for assessing infringement. The court evaluates the commercial embodiments to determine the defendant's proximity to the '335 Patent claims. In assessing willful infringement, a high standard is applied, focusing on the scope and timing of legal advice. Conclusory statements from in-house counsel or defense counsel lack the authority needed for establishing good faith reliance. Attempts to design around a patent can indicate good faith despite inadequate legal counsel. KMAG's correspondence with Cannon highlights concerns about potential infringement of U.S. patents owned by KMAG, requesting clarification on any differences in Cannon's devices. The Federal Circuit utilizes a "totality of the circumstances" test for determining willfulness, though it remains unclear if this requires a preponderance or clear and convincing evidence. The court found sufficient proof of willful action by the defendant. A motion for partial summary judgment regarding the validity of the patent assignment was filed shortly before trial, but the court decided to address the issue during the trial presentations and subsequently denied the motion.
The relationship between KMAG, KMC, and Mr. Petersen's involvement in the transaction is outlined in prior court opinions on jurisdiction and discovery. The plaintiff relies on a statement from *In re Merck* to support its obviousness claim, referencing that contemporaneous inventorship is indicative of the knowledge level at the time of invention. However, the evidence presented does not convincingly establish contemporaneous inventorship beyond the potential implication of sole inventorship by Messrs. Pahl and Keuerleber, which is different from the circumstances in *In re Merck*. Even if contemporaneous inventorship were proven, it is only one factor in evaluating obviousness, and the evidence regarding the '515 Patent does not support an obviousness finding.
Additionally, the plaintiff contends that the '128 Patent lacks utility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but both arguments rely on the same foundational case, *Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp.*, prompting the court to address only the utility argument. Frequent references at trial indicated KMAG's failure to commercialize a mixing head based on the '128 Patent, which could influence the obviousness analysis since commercial success is a relevant factor; however, this does not prove the claims' inoperability or invalidate the patent. The text notes that the reactive nature of polyurethane components complicates the feasibility of pouring multiple shots into a mold, as different hardening times could lead to uneven product formation. For a batch process mixing head to have broad commercial viability, its mixing chamber must be capable of delivering the full volume in a single shot.