Certain Vehicle Space Guards; Inv. No. 337-TA-1509 (Violation)

The ALJ granted summary determination of no violation of section 337 because the Drop Stop product does not infringe any asserted claim of the '314 patent, the only patent in the investigation. He construed the term 'a contoured vehicle space guard whereby the contour is shaped to fit the contour of an existing vehicle seat' to exclude a contour formed only when the device deforms to fit the space between the seat and the door or compartment, because of prosecution disclaimer over the Martin reference. Complainant's only infringement evidence was a contour that appears after installation, and it offered no doctrine of equivalents evidence. The ruling ends the investigation in its entirety with a determination of no violation, so no remedy, exclusion order, cease-and-desist order or bond was recommended. The ID is certified to the Commission and becomes its determination unless a party petitions for review or the Commission reviews on its own motion; review would likely focus on the prosecution disclaimer construction and the equivalents ruling. Claim construction: the applicant's statements distinguishing Martin, a deflector that deforms to fit the space between the seat and the door or compartment, were a clear and unmistakable disclaimer of a contour formed only upon deformation after installation. Complainant's arguments against disclaimer were rejected: the Martin distinction (conforming to the gap versus to the seat) is two sides of the same coin, claim 8 is not inconsistent, and disclaimer does not depend on whether the statements led to allowance. Infringement: it is undisputed that Complainant's only evidence is that the Drop Stop product becomes contoured in situ once installed, which the claims do not cover, so claims 1 and 14 and the other asserted claims are not infringed. Respondents did not need to submit affidavits on personal knowledge; under Exigent Technology and Celotex they needed only to show an absence of evidence of infringement. Doctrine of equivalents: Complainant's passing references lacked the particularized testimony and linking argument on function, way and result, so summary determination was appropriate and the investigation should be terminated with no violation.