Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
June 13, 2000, Decided
[***1002] [*1248] GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.
Rotec Industries, Inc. ("Rotec") appeals the December 14, 1998 order of the United States District Court for Central District of Illinois granting summary judgment to Mitsubishi Corporation, Tucker Associates, [**2] Inc., Garry Tucker and Mitsubishi International Corporation on Rotec's claims of infringement of United States Patent No. 4,170,291 (the " '291 patent"). See Rotec Indus., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 810 (C.D. Ill. 1998). Because we find that the district court did not err in its determinations, we affirm.
Rotec is a manufacturer of crane and conveyor systems designed to carry concrete over long distances. These systems are useful in large construction projects, such as the construction of river dams. Rotec is the assignee of record of the '291 [*1249] patent. The '291 patent discloses a tower crane supported articulated concrete conveyor belt system. Rotec sells a system disclosed by the '291 patent under the trade name "Tower Belt."
On August 9, 1995, the government of the People's Republic of China ("PRC") solicited bid proposals for five units of a concrete placing system to be used in the Three Gorges Dam project on the Yangtze River. All proposals were required to meet the specifications set forth by the Chinese Three Gorges Dam Project Corporation ("TGDPC"). Defendants Mitsubishi Corporation and Mitsubishi International (collectively, "MC") [**3] approached Defendant Potain, a French corporation, to propose that Potain become a partner with MC to submit a joint bid proposal. According to Defendants, Potain was working on the design of a conveyor system at that time jointly with C.S. Johnson ("Johnson"). As a result, Johnson was also invited to join in the proposal. Shortly thereafter, Johnson contacted Defendant Garry Tucker ("Tucker") of Defendant Tucker Associates, Inc. ("TA") for additional help in preparing the bid. Tucker agreed to serve as an independent contractor to perform the design work for the project, and attended a formal pre-qualifying bid conference that took place in the PRC in October of 1995.
On January 16, 1996 Potain and MC submitted their joint bid to the PRC to supply the equipment. The parties subsequently negotiated for nearly a year, and on December 16, 1996, Potain, MC and the TGDPC signed a purchase and sale agreement for two of the complete concrete placing systems requested. The terms of the agreement provided for two alternative arrangements. Under one alternative, Potain would design and manufacture the cranes used in the systems, and Johnson would design and manufacture the conveyors. Under [**4] the other alternative, Potain would provide all of the necessary components. Under either arrangement, MC would provide the financing.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
215 F.3d 1246 *; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 13563 **; 55 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1001 ***; 53 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 1399
ROTEC INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, TUCKER ASSOCIATES, INC. and GARRY TUCKER, Defendants-Appellees, and MITSUBISHI INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Prior History: [**1] Appealed from: U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois. Judge Michael P. McCuskey.
infringement, patent, offer to sell, district court, invention, offer for sale, conveyor, patentee, offers, patented invention, Defendants', take place, manufacture, selling, bid, personal jurisdiction, summary judgment, concrete, Dam, summary judgment motion, negotiations, supplied, motion to dismiss, actual sale, patent law, conspiracy, expiration, hearsay, machine, tower
Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, General Overview, Motions for Summary Judgment, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Discovery, Methods of Discovery, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Supporting Materials, Burdens of Proof, Business & Corporate Compliance, Infringement Actions, Infringing Acts, Making & Manufacturing Infringement, Patent Law, Offers to Sell & Sales, Use, Defenses, Inequitable Conduct, Burdens of Proof, Jurisdiction & Review, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Commercial Law (UCC), General Provisions (Article 1), Definitions & Interpretation, Subject Matter, Definitions, Evidence, Exemptions, Statements by Party Opponents, Vicarious Statements, Hearsay, Business & Corporate Law, Establishment, Elements, Right to Control by Principal, Agency Relationships, Courts, Authority to Adjudicate