Certain Nanolaminate Alloy Coated Metal Parts and Products Containing the Same; Inv. No. 337-TA-1431 (Violation)

The ALJ found no violation of Section 337, concluding that Modumetal failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that Respondents' ToughShield® Plus coated products infringe Asserted Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 of the '419 patent or Claims 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the '613 patent, and further found that Modumetal failed to satisfy both the technical and economic prongs of the domestic industry requirement. The ALJ construed 'noble' to mean non-reactivity in the context of corrosion resistance, assessable by corrosion potential measurement or salt spray testing, but found the accused products did not meet the claim limitations regardless. The no-violation finding means no exclusion order will issue unless the Commission reverses on review, which is possible given the Commission's independent review authority over all issues including claim construction, infringement, and domestic industry. Modumetal's failure on both the technical prong (DI Fastener not proven representative of all DI Products, and not proven to practice the claims) and the economic prong independently defeats the complaint, creating multiple grounds the Commission must address. Even if the Commission finds infringement, the domestic industry failures present a significant independent barrier to any remedy. No Section 337 violation found: Respondents' ToughShield® Plus products do not infringe any asserted claim of either the '419 or '613 patent, and Respondents failed to prove the asserted claims invalid Claim construction of 'noble': construed to mean non-reactivity in the context of corrosion resistance, assessable by corrosion potential or salt spray testing (ASTM B117), rejecting Respondents' narrow 'corrosion potential only' construction and Modumetal's overly broad 'non-reactivity' framing Technical domestic industry failure: Modumetal's sole tested DI Fastener was not proven representative of all DI Products due to absence of quality control data, no testing of other products, and Dr. Kelly's inability to opine on consistency across the product line; the DI Fastener also failed to practice Claim 1 of either patent Economic domestic industry: Modumetal failed to prove economic domestic industry for the DI Fastener alone, though if the DI Fastener were found representative and practicing the claims, the DI Products taken as a whole would satisfy the economic prong under §§ 337(a)(3)(A) and (B) Remedy recommendation (conditional): If the Commission finds a violation, the ALJ recommends a Limited Exclusion Order with certification provision and carveout for non-infringing redesigns, quarterly DI reporting, no CDO, and no bond during the Presidential Review Period