PLASTIC OMNIUM ADVANCED v. DONGHEE AMERICA, INC.
- Dec 3 2019 |
- Category: CAFC Updates
Plastic Omnium sued Donghee asserting infringement of several patents relating to manufacturing plastic fuel tanks formed by blow molding. After claim construction, Donghee moved for summary judgment of non-infringement and the district court granted Donghee’s motion. Plastic Omnium challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment of no literal infringement and no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The CAFC agrees with the district court that there is no literal infringement because Donghee’s accused product is different from the claimed system because the asserted claims require that a tubular parison is first extruded and cut at the point of extrusion or sometime thereafter and in Donghee’s system, the plastic is split and formed within the die, and what is extruded is two formed plastic sheets, not a parison. With respect to doctrine of equivalents, the CAFC finds that Plastic Omnium failed to present evidence as to why the differences between the touted advantage of uniform wall thickness in the asserted patents and the capability of independent wall thickness manipulation in the accused product were insubstantial, and that Plastic Omnium therefore failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact that would prevent the grant of summary judgment as to the doctrine of equivalents. Accordingly, the CAFC affirms. Judge Clevenger dissents, because in his view the real dispute is not over an extruded parison and what it takes to create one, but is instead over the term “die” and whether Donghee’s extrusion head contains one.