Ridge Corp., et al. v. Kirk NationaLease Co., et al.
Before Dyk, Mayer, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Summary: A patentee’s statements during prosecution distinguishing prior art may create substantial questions of noninfringement sufficient to defeat a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs Ridge Corp. and Cold Chain, LLC (collectively “Ridge”) sued multiple defendants for infringement of a patent directed to an insulated overhead roll-up door. The asserted patent claimed, among other things, a door structure with a sheet of foam attached to a thermoplastic membrane. The door further required a door panel that is flexible along its entire length so that it could approximate the curvature of a curved track. Ridge sought a preliminary injunction, which the district court granted, and the defendants appealed.
The Federal Circuit reversed. The court explained that the accused product used a “sandwich” structure that is rigid and inflexible and cannot move on a curved track without modifications, including creating compression gaps in the panel. These gaps, the court reasoned, were not sufficient to establish that the accused door is flexible along its entire length, as claimed, because the sections of the door without such gaps were rigid and inflexible. The Federal Circuit explained that the prosecution history reinforced this requirement because the applicant distinguished the flexibility of the materials used in the door’s construction from doors that used multiple hinged sections to travel along a curved track. The court also noted that the applicant distinguished its invention from a “sandwich” structure with a foam core between outer plastic layers, which required a membrane as a first outermost surface and foam as a second outermost surface. Accordingly, the court concluded there were substantial questions of noninfringement, reversed the injunction, and remanded.
Editor: Sean Murray
Subscribe for News and Updates
