On July 10, 2014, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued the public version of Order No. 21 (dated June 19, 2014), denying multiple motions for summary determination filed by Respondents Federal-Mogul Corporation and Federal-Mogul SA (collectively, “Federal-Mogul”) in Certain Windshield Wipers and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-902).

By way of background, this investigation is based on an October 21, 2013 complaint filed by Trico alleging violation of Section 337 in the importation into the U.S. and sale of certain windshield wipers and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,836,925 and 6,799,348.  See our October 22, 2013 and November 25, 2013 posts for more details on the complaint and the Notice of Investigation, respectively.

According to the Order, Federal-Mogul filed a motion seeking summary determination as to non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,925 (the ‘925 patent).  After reviewing the parties’ motion papers in support of and in opposition to the motion, ALJ Essex found that issues of material fact exist that prevent a finding of summary determination.

Additionally, Federal-Mogul filed a motion for summary determination that Complainant Trico Products Corporation (“Trico”) is estopped from asserting that “compound curvature” in claim 5 of the ‘925 patent meant anything other than “curved in two or more planes.”  ALJ Essex noted that this motion was moot as claim 5 of the ‘925 patent was terminated from the investigation by ALJ Essex’s earlier issued Order No. 10 that terminated, inter alia, claim 5 of the ‘925 patent from the investigation.

Federal-Mogul also submitted a motion for summary determination that Trico is estopped from rewriting the formula found in claims 1 and 15 of the ‘925 patent.  After reviewing the parties’ motion papers in support of and in opposition to the motion, ALJ Essex found that issues of material fact exist that prevent a finding of summary determination.

According to the Order, Federal-Mogul further submitted a motion for summary determination that Trico surrendered any wiper whose support structure has a cross-sectional profile and whose perimeter is not completely encapsulated from any arguable scope of protection during prosecution of the ‘925 patent.  After reviewing the parties’ motion papers in support of and in opposition to the motion, ALJ Essex found that issues of material fact exist that prevent a finding of summary determination.

Lastly, Federal-Mogul submitted a motion for summary determination that Trico surrendered all “space formations” that fail to permit bending and flexing of the beam and all “claws” that fail to permit longitudinal movement of the beam relative to the coupler during prosecution.  After reviewing the parties’ motion papers in support of and in opposition to the motion, ALJ Essex found that issues of material fact exist that prevent a finding of summary determination.