ITC Refusal to Block Import of Marine Air Conditioner Products affirmed by Federal Circuit
ITC Refusal to Block Import of Marine Air Conditioner Products affirmed by Federal Circuit
The ITC erred in finding no infringement and no domestic industry for claims 18 through 22 based on an incorrect claim construction of the “first axis” limitation; Dometic also argued
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has issued a decision in Dometic Corp. v. International Trade Commission, affirming a final determination that Citimarine, L.L.C., and other intervenors did not violate Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. According to the CAFC, the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) correctly concluded that Dometic Corp. and Dometic Sweden AB failed to prove a violation through the import of certain marine air conditioning systems. The ITC finding that several claims of the asserted patent are invalid for anticipation and that the accused products do not infringe the remaining claims was affirmed by the court, thus denying relief in the form of an exclusion order blocking import of the products into the United States.
A certain U.S. patent number describes a marine air conditioning system designed for easy installation in tight and confined spaces on boats. A device with a main body, a blower and an assembly with specific components and rotational properties to alter the orientation of the blower outlet is covered by the patent. This technology was introduced by Dometic to address the challenge of providing airflow while allowing flexible installation, while minimizing the system’s height in confined spaces. Two types of rotation are used by the invention to enable installation of the unit in many differently configured nautical vehicles where limited space and numerous nearby air-obstructing objects are present. Dometic filed a complaint with the ITC in November 2022 alleging that the importation and sale of certain marine air conditioning systems by Citimarine, Mabru Power Systems, Inc. Shanghai Hopewell Industrial Co. Ltd., and Shanghai Hehe Industrial Co. Ltd. infringed claims 1 through 2, 4 through 5, 7, and 18 through 22 of the ‘351 patent. An investigation was instituted by the ITC the following month. An initial summary determination finding that a prior art product referred to as the Vector Compact anticipates claims 1 through 2, 4 through 5, and 7 was issued by an administrative law judge and the Commission affirmed this determination. Later, the administrative law judge issued a final initial determination concluding that no violation occurred regarding claims 18 through 22 because Dometic did not prove infringement or satisfaction of the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement. Judge Taranto, writing for the CAFC, found that the ITC properly concluded that the Vector Compact product anticipates claims 1 through 2, 4 through 5, and 7. Dometic argued that the claim term “assembly” must be physically disjointed from the “main body” except for attaching to each other. Dometic relied on a presumption that separately listed claim limitations indicate separate and distinct physical structures, citing Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP. This argument was rejected by the Federal Circuit, explaining that the context provided by the patent as a whole overcomes any such presumption. The court observed that the specification and figures show that a guiding cover, which is part of the assembly, can be “mounted above the drain pan” and included in the main body. The abstract explicitly describes “a main body including an assembly”, the court also pointed out. The shroud in the Vector Compact product contains components that are part of the main body, “precluding the shroud from being entirely distinct from either the assembly or the guiding power” it further noted. The ITC erred in finding no infringement and no domestic industry for claims 18 through 22 based on an incorrect claim construction of the “first axis” limitation; Dometic also argued. Affirming the ITC construction that requires “two structurally and functionally distinct rotational degrees of freedom”, the Federal Circuit disagreed. The claim language naturally reads as requiring two independent rotation hubs, one for the blower and one for the assembly. The court reasoned that the specification teaches this configuration to solve the problem of controlling the device’s height and to allow flexible installation in confined spaces. The argument that the first axis and second axis may collapse into a single functional rotation was rejected by the court which noted that “the fact that the blower and duct element are coupled does not eliminate the distinct structural roles of the two modes of rotation.” “Even if the axes may be colinear, that alignment would not collapse the two modes of rotation into one.”
The prosecution history supports the ITC construction requiring two modes of rotation; the Federal Circuit further noted. Dometic amended the claim during prosecution to specify a “first axis” and added an assembly limitation for adjusting the blower about a “second axis” to secure allowance of the claim; the court observed. Adopting the construction proposed by Dometic “would effectively reverse this change during prosecution and collapse the two axes in as-issued claim 18 into the single rotational axis of the pre-amendment version of the claim”; the court concluded. The original claim language required only that the blower be rotatable about an axis, and that the addition of the first and second-axis limitations was necessary to overcome prior art. The Federal Circuit therefore affirmed the ITC’s final determination in full.
