Alticor Inc. v. Ultra-Sun Technologies, Inc.

Citation: 106 F. App'x 46Docket: No. 03-1639

Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; July 20, 2004; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Alticor Inc. appeals a summary judgment of noninfringement by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan favoring Ultra-Sun Technologies, Inc. in the case Alticor Inc. v. Ultra-Sun Technologies, Inc., 269 F.Supp.2d 936 (W.D.Mich.2003). The appeal involves claims 1-4, 6, and 24 from U.S. Patent No. 5,536,395 and claims 1 and 3-6 from U.S. Patent No. 5,698,091, both related to water purification systems utilizing UV light to eliminate microorganisms. The patents describe a system where water flows through a tube containing a UV light, which is crucial for the purification process. 

The court identifies that a reasonable jury could conclude that Ultra-Sun's device monitors the performance of its UV light and incorporates features resembling the claimed 'plug-like spiral flow.' Ultra-Sun’s device includes a 'light pipe' that signals the status of the UV light with an external blue light, and a timer that indicates the UV light's operational status through colored lights (green, yellow, red) based on its usage duration. The flow of water through the device may or may not achieve the claimed 'plug-like spiral flow.' The summary judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings, focusing on the independent claims of the patents that pertain to the performance monitoring of the radiant energy source.

Claim 24 of the patent incorporates a 'radiant energy monitoring means' designed to monitor the performance of a radiant energy source and signal when it has reached its end-of-life. In the ’091 patent, claims 3-6 are dependent on claim 1, which includes limitations regarding 'directional means' for creating a specific flow within an open chamber surrounding an ultraviolet discharge lamp. The district court interpreted 'radiant energy monitor' as a device that assesses the efficacy of the radiant energy source in eliminating microorganisms. It concluded that a 'window' (referring to a light pipe) does not qualify as a device capable of such monitoring, as it merely provides visibility into the sterilization chamber without assessing the lamp's performance.

Further, the court identified the claimed 'radiant energy monitoring means' structures as a voltage detection circuit and a microprocessor, noting that these are fundamentally different from a window. Consequently, it ruled that no reasonable jury could find infringement. In addressing the 'means for establishing plug-like spiral flow' limitation, the court recognized agreed structures as a diverter plate, an elongate bottle-shaped vessel, and a radial baffle. It determined that C-shaped clips of the accused device were significantly different from the radial baffle, again leading to the conclusion of no infringement.

Alticor is appealing the district court's claim constructions and their application to the accused device, asserting errors in both areas. The appeal falls under the jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(1), and being an appeal from a summary judgment, it is subject to plenary review. Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact, allowing a judgment as a matter of law, whereas it is improper if a reasonable jury could find in favor of the non-moving party. Claim construction is a legal question, and the interpretation of claims must precede any infringement analysis.

The court reviews claim construction without deference, determining the meaning and scope of claim language to assess whether a reasonable jury could find that the accused device meets the limitations of the claims, either literally or by application of the doctrine of equivalents. The case involves two main disputes: (1) whether the light pipe or timer in the accused device qualifies as a 'radiant energy monitor' that indicates when a UV light source has reached end-of-life, and (2) whether the structures in the accused device are equivalent to the limitation 'means for establishing plug-like spiral flow.' 

For claims 1 and 6 of the ’395 patent, the court agrees with the district court's understanding that the 'radiant energy monitor' is a device that must perform two functions: monitoring performance and indicating end-of-life. It concurs that the radiant energy source is intended for killing microorganisms. However, the court disagrees with the district court's conclusion regarding infringement. It believes a reasonable jury could find that Ultra-Sun's light pipe functions as a monitor by transmitting light signals that indicate whether the UV light is operational. The court refutes Ultra-Sun’s argument that a monitor must be 'active' and emphasizes that the light pipe effectively allows the device to monitor the performance of the radiant energy source.

Additionally, the court notes that the district court may have overlooked that a device capable of timing the lifespan of a degrading radiant energy source could also be seen as 'monitoring performance.' Although Ultra-Sun acknowledges that timing is a performance parameter, it argues against the connection between the timing arrangement and the light. The court maintains that a jury could still reasonably conclude that the accused device infringes the claims.

Ultra-Sun argues that the timer in the accused device is not electronically connected to the UV light, suggesting it may inaccurately indicate the UV lamp's operational status. The opposing view maintains that the timer and associated lights (green, yellow, red) are operationally linked to the UV bulb's function, allowing them to predict when the bulb is ineffective for microorganism elimination. A reasonable jury could find that this setup qualifies as monitoring the UV light’s performance. Arguments indicating the timer's occasional inaccuracies do not negate its potential proper functionality. The combination of the light pipe and timer mechanisms could be interpreted as a "radiant energy monitor" for assessing radiant energy source performance. 

The document highlights scenarios where the timer may misrepresent the UV light's efficacy, yet the light pipe would accurately indicate its status. It concludes that a reasonable jury could see the light pipe and timer collectively or individually as fulfilling the monitoring requirement. The district court has yet to define the claim language regarding indications of "end-of-life," which may need to consider whether the same structures providing monitoring can also indicate end-of-life status.

Regarding claim 24 of the ’395 patent, the district court's summary judgment is deemed erroneous. While the court recognized that the term "means" invokes 35 U.S.C. 112 ¶ 6 and identified certain structures linked to the "radiant energy monitoring means," the identified list is incomplete. The written description connects a microprocessor with a clock to the monitoring means, emphasizing that UV lamp performance degrades over time, necessitating monitoring to alert users of malfunctions. The specification also notes the microprocessor's role in tracking filter lifespan through total accumulated flow based on time.

The filter discussed is distinct from the radiant energy source, specifically a color LED array with a lamp indicating the status of UV light, driven by microprocessor 220. This microprocessor outputs signals to LED drivers on an enunciator board to indicate the water treatment system's condition and maintenance needs. A green lamp signals that the system is available for use, while a blinking green lamp alongside another indicates that maintenance is required, but usage can continue. 

The excerpt asserts that a person skilled in the art would understand the microprocessor and clock to be connected to timing the UV light's lifespan, which is critical for monitoring the radiant energy source's performance. The plaintiff is permitted to present to a jury whether the accused device's structures are identical to or equivalent to the claimed timing structures. 

Regarding claim 1 of the ’091 patent, it was determined that the district court incorrectly granted summary judgment of noninfringement, as both parties agreed on the structures necessary for the claimed function, which include a diverter plate and an elongate vessel. The accused device's components, including an elongate chamber and tangential inlet, bear similarities to the claimed structures. 

In assessing infringement under 35 U.S.C. 112 ¶ 6, it is essential to view the claimed and accused structures holistically. The court noted that a reasonable jury could find the accused structure identical or equivalent to the claimed structure, especially given the evidence provided by Alticor, including experimental data and expert testimony suggesting that the accused device generates a plug-like spiral flow, possibly fulfilling the radial baffle function of the claimed structure. 

Consequently, the district court's conclusion that no reasonable jury could find that the accused device monitors the radiant energy source's performance or contains equivalent monitoring means was erroneous. Therefore, the court vacated the summary judgment in favor of Ultra-Sun and remanded for further proceedings.