WACOH Co. v. ANALOG DEVICES INC., Case No. 09-10119

WACOH COMPANY, Plaintiff,

v.ANALOG DEVICES, INC. and ROBERT BOSCH LLC, Defendants

Case No. 09-10119

Consolidated with No. 09-10123

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Dated: April 5, 2011

Honorable Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

ORDER

On January 12, 2008, the Plaintiff, Wacoh Company ("Wacoh"), initiated this lawsuit in which it accused the Defendants, Analog Devices, Inc. ("ADI") and Robert Bosch LLC, ("Bosch") of infringing upon one if its patents, namely, U.S. Patent No. 6,512,364 ("the '364 patent"). In the '364 patent, Wacoh owns, by assignment,¹ an invention called a "Testing Sensor," which the company describes as "an apparatus for detecting a physical quantity acting as an external force. . . ." (Wacoh Opening Brief at 1). Wacoh accuses the Defendants of violating its '364 patent through the manufacture and sale of accelerometers for use in airbags and other automobile systems. The Defendants define "accelerometer" as a type of sensor that detects sudden changes in speed.² The parties have submitted briefs pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) and have asked the Court to construe several disputed terms used in the '364 patent.

I.

In broad terms, the '364 patent covers an invention wherein a certain type of sensor triggers an electrical signal. The Defendants claim that the '364 patent covers only sensors that operate by causing a "mechanical deformation" of so-called "piezoresistive" material to trigger the electrical signal. According to the Defendants, piezoresistive material is "one whose electrical resistance changes when the material's shape is compressed or deformed." (Defendants' Opening Brief at 1). The Defendants claim that the sensor described in the '364 patent works in the following manner:

• First, a sudden change in speed causes an object (the working body or weight body), which is suspended like a pendulum, to swing;

• That swinging bends the piezoresistive material connected to the pivot point of the pendulum;

• Next, the resulting deformation changes the electrical resistance of the piezoresistive material; and

• Finally, that change is measured and converted into an electrical signal used to trigger, in the Defendants' case, the deployment of an airbag.

The Defendants' brief also reproduces Figure 20 of the patent, with annotations, to assist the Court in understanding the structure of the Plaintiff's claimed sensor. A variation of that image is below, but the Court notes that it reflects only one possible embodiment of the Plaintiff's invention:

Patent '364 Fig. 20 (modified and with annotations).

According to the Defendants, the '364 patent involves two distinct portions: (1) claims involving the sensor itself, which - as discussed - detects a force or a sudden acceleration or deceleration, and (2) a method of testing the sensor to make sure it is operating correctly. The sensor itself comprises two parts. The first, illustrated in blue above, is the strain generative body.³According to the Defendants, it is constructed of a material that can bend at the thinner, more flexible portions. The second part of the sensor is the "working body" or "weight body," and as shown, it hangs from the strain generative body. Inasmuch as the working body is suspended in air and capable of swinging back and forth, the Defendants compare its structure to that of a pendulum.

To illustrate the how the sensor works, the Defendants offer an example:

!

When a vehicle containing a sensor is moving at a constant speed, the vehicle and the sensor both move at that speed. When the vehicle comes to a sudden stop, such as in a front-end collision, the sensor body will also stop moving. But because the working body is hanging in air, it continues to move— much like a passenger not wearing a seatbelt. Being a pendulum, the working body moves forward and up. As the working body swings, it transmits a force that bends the strain generative body at its thinner, flexible portions. This displacement of the working body and bending of the strain generative body are shown below in Figure 21 from the patent.

(Defendants' Opening Brief at 4) (citations omitted).

A second illustration of the displacement of the working body and bending of the strain generative body appear in Figure 21 from the patent. A variation of that image appears in the Defendants' brief and is reproduced below:

Patent '364, Fig. 21 (annotated and with color variations).

As noted above, the Plaintiff describes its invention as a "Testing Sensor," namely, an apparatus for detecting a physical quantity acting as an external force. According to the Plaintiff, the novelty of the claims in the ' 364 patent are that they are directed towards methods of testing such sensors, including self-testing, to ensure that the sensor is working prior to use. Although the Plaintiff acknowledges that Claims 1,3,4,5, and 6 of the '364 patent are at issue in this litigation, it believes that Claim 1 contains all of the terms that are disputed by the parties and, in that regard, is exemplary of the other claims. Claim 1 reads as follows, with disputed terms highlighted in bold italics:

What is claimed is:

1. A method of testing a sensor, said sensor comprising:

a substrate arranged along an XY-plane of an XYZ three-dimensional coordinate system; a working body receiving a force and located adjacent to said substrate with a predetermined distance;

a flexible member supporting said working body at a periphery thereof so that said working body is suspended and spatial deviation of said working body is produced by applying said force thereto;

a fixing member fixing said flexible member to said substrate; and a transducer for transforming said spatial deviation into an electric signal that indicates a direction and a magnitude of said force, said method comprising the steps of:

providing a capacitance element including a deviation electrode and a fixed electrode, said deviation electrode being located at a position which deviates along with said working body and said fixed electrode being fixed to said substrate so as to face said deviation electrode, and said capacitance element being arranged so that an electrode distance of said capacitance element changes when said working body is deviated in an X-axis direction of said XYZ three-dimensional coordinate system; applying a voltage between said deviation electrode and said fixed electrode so that Coulomb force is produced which causes spatial deviation of said working body in said X-axis direction; detecting an electric signal transformed by said transducer while said spatial deviation is caused by applying said voltage; and testing an operation of said sensor with respect to said X-axis direction based on a relationship between said applied voltage and said detected electric signal.

'364 patent, Col. 34, line 41- Col. 35, line 8. Wacoh argues that the Defendants' vehicle sensors violate claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the '364 patent. However, the Defendants contend that because their accelerometers do not use mechanical deformation to trigger the electrical signal, the '364 patent has no applicability to them.

II.

The parties have asked the Court to construe eight disputed terms in Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the '364 patent, namely the meaning of (1) "a working body," (2) "spatial deviation," (3) a "transducer for transforming said spatial deviation into an electric signal," (4) "providing a capacitance element," (5) "capacitance element," (6) "deviation electrode," (7) "fixed electrode," and (8) "Coulomb force." Both parties have submitted briefs indicating what they believe to be the proper construction of the terms at issue.

In 1995, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals declared that a trial court should undertake a two step process when attempting to determine if a patent infringement has occurred; namely (1) construe all of the disputed claims, and (2) then determine if the accused product infringes upon any of the claims as properly construed. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).

Claim construction is a matter of law which is the responsibility of the trial court. Cybor v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F. 3d 1448, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998). It is "the process of giving proper meaning to the claim language." Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As such, this process is designed to "define the scope of the protected invention." Id. Claim construction is a legal issue, while comparison to the accused product or the prior art are factual undertakings. TechSearch, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp, 286 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

When construing claims, a court should initially consider the language of the patent claim. Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In the absence of an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a term within the claim, there is a "heavy presumption" that a term carries its ordinary and customary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art. Id at 1325. Thus, when "construing claims, the analytical focus must begin and remain centered on the language of the claims themselves, for it is that language that the patentee chose to use to 'particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the patentee regards as his own invention.'" Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 112). Often, dictionaries are useful resources to assist the court in determining the ordinary and customary meanings of claim terms, as well as the meanings that would have been ascribed to technical terms by those of skill in the relevant art. Texas Ditigal Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

The trial courts are also encouraged to examine the...