Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Group Co. et al., No. 2014-1373, -1399, 2015 U. S. App. LEXIS 9634 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2015) (Reyna, CJ.). Click Here for a copy of the opinion.
Kaneka Corp. ("Kaneka") sued Xiamen Kingdomway Group Co. and other defendants, alleging infringement of its coenzyme Q10 dietary supplement patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,910,340 ("the '340 Patent"). After filing suit, Kaneka filed a § 337 Petition in the U.S. International Trade Commission ("ITC") involving the same asserted claims of the '340 Patent. The district court stayed the lawsuit pending resolution of the ITC proceeding. The ITC in turn issued a decision finding no infringement by the defendants. The district court lifted its stay and construed several claim terms according to the ITC's claim construction. Based on this claim construction, the defendants moved for summary judgment of non-infringement. The district court found no genuine issue of material fact that the accused process did not infringe the '340 Patent. Summary judgment was granted and Kaneka appealed.
The Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded the district court's summary judgment that the Defendants did not infringe the '340 Patent. Specifically, the district court incorrectly relied on extrinsic evidence (e.g., dictionary definitions) to form a construction of "sealed tank" that is inconsistent with the intrinsic record. Although the specification did not explicitly define the term "sealed," a "[w]ord-for-word alignment of disclosed embodiments . . . with claim language is unnecessary when the meaning of a claim term can be ascertained from the intrinsic record." Based on Figures 1 and 8 of the '340 Patent, a "sealed tank" must be sealed to the atmosphere and need not be sealed to prevent entry or exit of all materials. The Court also found that the claimed "oxidation" step required some action that resulted in oxidation, but disagreed that it required oxidation of "all or substantially all" of the coenzyme Q10. Further, "oxidation" was not required to be "carried out separately or independently of any other step," because the claims read on a continuous process. Taken in their proper context, from intrinsic evidence, the district court's claim construction was incorrect. Accordingly, the Court vacated summary judgment of non-infringement with respect to claims 22 and 33, and their associated dependent claims, and remanded the case to the district court.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
