Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Alpek Polyester, S.A. De C.V. et al. v. Polymetrix Ag, No. 2021-1706 (Dec. 16, 2021), affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment of no induced infringement.
The asserted Alpek patents cover methods and processes for producing polyethylene terephthalate (“PET”) resin used to create plastic bottles. Polymetrix is an engineering company that supplies equipment and engineering services for the construction of plants that manufacture PET resin, but it does not itself manufacture PET resin. In 2013, Polymetrix contracted with Indorama Ventures Poland (“IVP”) to provide a manufacturing plant in Poland with equipment to manufacture PET resin. During the ensuing commissioning period, IVP conducted performance testing and sent several PET samples to affiliate laboratories in the U.S. In 2016, Alpek sued Polymetrix for inducing infringement of the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by causing IVP to import into the U.S. a product produced by the patented process. The district court granted Polymetrix’s motion for summary judgment. Alpek appealed.
The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Court noted that the district court granted the summary judgment motion because Alpek identified no admissible evidence to support either of its two causation theories: (1) that the contract between Polymetrix and IVP satisfied the causation element because it caused IVP to send PET samples to the U.S. for testing or (2) that Polymetrix’s retroactive ratification of the importation, by receiving and using test results it knew were from U.S. laboratories, satisfied the causation element. The Court held that the district court did not err in concluding that Alpek had failed to demonstrate any genuine issue of material fact capable of supporting either theory. More specifically, the Court agreed with the district court’s evidentiary ruling excluding 30(b)(6) deposition testimony from a non-party and with the district court’s conclusion that the evidence established Polymetrix did not use the test results from the U.S. laboratories. The Court rejected arguments made by Alpek about the implications of Swedish law on the contract between Polymetrix and IVP, explaining that the patent issues in the case were governed by U.S. patent law. The Court also affirmed the district court’s denial of Alpek’s motion to amend its complaint to add a direct infringement claim, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that Alpek had failed to justify its late request.