Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Plastic Omnium Advanced Innovation and Research v. Donghee America, Inc., et al., No. 2018-2087 (Dec. 3, 2019), affirming the District of Delaware’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement.
Patentee Plastic Omnium alleged infringement by Donghee of two patents relating to manufacturing plastic fuel tanks formed by blow moldings such that accessory components can be installed inside the fuel tank without cutting holes in the tank wall. Based on the specification, the district court ruled that the term “extruded parison” required the parison be cut as it exits the die or at some time thereafter. Because it was undisputed that the accused product was cut inside a flat die tool, the Court granted summary judgment of no literal infringement and no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Plastic Omnium appealed.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit explained that although Donghee’s literature used the term “parison,” Plastic Omnium had acted as its own lexicographer in defining the term for purposes of application of the patent claims and that definition controls. With regard to doctrine of equivalents, relying on Plastic Omnium’s own statements concerning the benefits of the patented invention, the Court explained that the accused product and the claimed invention offered different benefits, and Plastic Omnium failed to show these differences were insubstantial.
Judge Clevenger dissented explaining that Donghee’s process includes two dies—an extrusion die and a flat die tool. Because the parison is cut by the flat die tool which is outside of the extrusion die, Judge Clevenger would have found an issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.