Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
September 6, 2007, Decided
[***1109] [*1276] Automotive Technologies International, Inc. ("ATI") appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granting summary judgment of invalidity of claims 1-44 of U.S. Patent 5,231,253 (the "'253 patent") under 35 U.S.C. § 112, P 1. ATI also appeals from the decision of the district court granting summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of various defendants. Auto. Tech. Int'l v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 378 F. Supp. 2d 780 (E.D. Mich. 2005) (Invalidity Order); Auto. Tech. Int'l v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., No. 01-CV-71700-DT, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45587 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 26, 2005) (Noninfringement Order). Defendants Calsonic Kansei Corporation and Nissan North America, Inc. cross-appeal from the decision of the district court denying their motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. Auto. Tech. Int'l v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., No. 01-CV-71700-DT, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30594 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 27, 2004) (Denial of Noninfringement Order). Because we conclude that the asserted claims of the '253 patent are invalid for lack of enablement, we affirm the decision of the district court [**3] granting summary judgment of invalidity. Because of that conclusion, the infringement appeal and cross-appeal are moot.
The technology at issue involves crash sensing devices for deployment in an occupant [*1277] protection apparatus, such as an airbag, during an impact or crash involving the side of a vehicle. ATI is the assignee of the '253 patent, entitled "Side Impact Sensors." The [***1110] invention is directed to a velocity-type sensor placed in a position within a vehicle in order to sense a side impact. A velocity-type sensor is a sensor that triggers when a velocity change sensed in a crash exceeds a threshold value.
Representative claim 1 reads as follows:
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
501 F.3d 1274 *; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 21271 **; 84 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1108 ***
AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., CK ELECTRONICS, INCORPORATED, CONTI TEMIC MICROELECTRONIC, GMBH, and TEMIC AUTOMOTIVE OF NORTH AMERICA, INCORPORATED, Defendants, and DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, FORD MOTOR COMPANY, HONDA MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INCORPORATED, HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., SAAB CARS USA, INC., SIEMENS AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION, and TOYOTA MOTOR SALES USA, INC., Defendants/Counterclaimants-Appellees, and GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellee, and VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant/Counterclaimant, and NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant/Counterclaimant-Cross Appellant, and CALSONIC KANSEI CORPORATION, and Counterclaimant Defendant-Cross Appellant, SIEMENS AG, TK ELECTRONICS, INCORPORATED, and TRW AUTOMOTIVE U.S., LLC, Counterclaimants Defendants-Appellees, and DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, Counterclaimant Defendant-Appellee, and KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INCORPORATED, and BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE MOTORS SYSTEM CORPORATION, Counterclaimants Defendants.
Prior History: [**1] Appealed from: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Judge Robert H. Cleland.
Auto. Techs. Int'l v. BMW of N. Am., 378 F. Supp. 2d 780, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14697 ( E.D. Mich., 2005)
sensor, electronic, specification, district court, mechanical, invention, enabled, housing, invalid, crash, skilled, experimentation, side door, technologies, disclosure, assembly, mounted, switch, full scope, acceleration, impacts, corresponding, infringement, initiating, apparatus, includes, column, lines, summary judgment motion, side of the vehicle
Civil Procedure, Appeals, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, General Overview, Patent Law, Jurisdiction & Review, Standards of Review, Clearly Erroneous Review, Specifications, Enablement Requirement, De Novo Review, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Clear & Convincing Proof, Defenses, Patent Invalidity, Presumption of Validity, Standards & Tests