Red Rhino Leak Detection, Inc. v. Anderson Manufacturing Company, Inc.

Background

Red Rhino owns U.S. Patent No. 9,464,959, which describes a system and method for detecting leaks in a fluid-filled vessel. Red Rhino alleged that Anderson’s light tester infringed the patent. Anderson asserted counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity.

The parties presented four issues: Anderson’s request to interpret four disputed patent terms; Anderson’s motion for summary judgment arguing that it did not infringe and/or that the patent was invalid; Anderson’s motion to exclude the testimony of Red Rhino’s expert, Glen Stevick, under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence; and Red Rhino’s motion for summary judgment on its claims for direct, induced, and contributory infringement.

Expert testimony

The court denied Anderson’s motion to exclude Stevick’s testimony. It concluded that Stevick was qualified as a technical expert in detecting fluid leaks based on his mechanical-engineering education, professional experience, and work on leak-detection systems involving gasoline tanks, pipes, and vessels. The court rejected Anderson’s argument that an expert needed specific experience with swimming-pool leak detection because the patent addressed fluid-filled vessels more broadly.

Claim construction

The court construed the disputed patent language before deciding the summary-judgment motions. It rejected Anderson’s argument that Red Rhino had broadly disclaimed any device requiring removal of a light and later dye testing. The court found that Red Rhino’s statements during patent prosecution were not clear and unmistakable enough to create that limitation.

The court interpreted “selectively deliver fluid through the inlet” to mean that the inlet can deliver, or not deliver, fluid according to natural hydrodynamic forces and the presence or absence of a leak. It interpreted “deliver a dye solution” as requiring delivery of the dye into the housing, including by some amount of force or injection when natural forces would not draw the dye in.

The court rejected Anderson’s proposed interpretation of “the seal being for effecting anchoring.” The court did not require the seal alone to fix or secure the device in place; other features, forces, or applications, such as a weight or suction cup, could help hold the device in position.

The court also held that the patent’s description of the underwater surface surrounding a component partly in a passage was not indefinite. It construed that language to refer to a defined area of the pool, with a defined perimeter engaged by the seal, surrounding a component partly in a passage with one portion on or above the underwater surface and another portion below or otherwise removed from that surface.

Summary judgment

The court denied Anderson’s motion for summary judgment in all respects. Based on Anderson’s admissions about its own product and the court’s claim constructions, the court determined that Anderson’s device directly infringed the patent. The court rejected Anderson’s arguments that its product did not meet the fluid-delivery limitation, that the prosecution history barred infringement, that the seal had to anchor the device by itself, and that the patent claim was indefinite.

The court also rejected Anderson’s argument that the Aquadome prior-art device anticipated claim 1 and therefore invalidated the patent. The court concluded that the patent’s use of the term “rod” strongly suggested a solid rather than hollow structure. Because the Aquadome did not have a solid threaded rod, it did not contain every element of claim 1, so Anderson’s anticipation argument was rejected.

The court denied Red Rhino summary judgment on induced infringement and contributory infringement. It found that Red Rhino had not identified sufficient evidence in its opening brief showing that Anderson had the required knowledge and specific intent for induced infringement or the required knowledge and lack of substantial non-infringing uses for contributory infringement. The court also declined to consider evidence and arguments raised for the first time in Red Rhino’s reply brief.

Order and effect

Judge Eric C. Tostrud ordered that Anderson’s expert-exclusion motion be denied; the disputed patent terms be construed as described in the opinion; Anderson’s summary-judgment motion be denied in all respects; and Red Rhino’s summary-judgment motion be granted in part and denied in part. Red Rhino’s motion was granted on its direct-infringement claim and on Anderson’s counterclaims, but denied on the induced- and contributory-infringement claims. Anderson’s counterclaims were dismissed.