Error: Bad annotation destination
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
05-1407
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
and HONEYWELL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
ITT INDUSTRIES, INC. and ITT AUTOMOTIVE, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
TG NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
TG FLUID SYSTEMS USA CORPORATION, and A. RAYMOND, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Dan L. Bagatell, Perkins Coie Brown & Bain P.A., of Phoenix, Arizona, argued for
plaintiffs-appellants. Of counsel on the brief were R. Terrance Rader and Glenn E.
Forbis, Rader, Fishman & Grauer PLLC, of Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. Of counsel was
Kristin L. Murphy, Rader, Fishman & Grauer PLLC.
Thomas N. Young, Young & Basile, P.C., of Troy, Michigan, argued for
defendants-appellees, ITT Industries, Inc., et al.
Stephen L. Sulzer, Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP, of Washington, DC, argued
for defendants-appellees, TG North America Corporation, et al. With him on the brief
was James P. Calve.
Appealed from: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Senior Judge Avern Cohn
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
05-1407
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
and HONEYWELL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
ITT INDUSTRIALS, INC. and ITT AUTOMOTIVE, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
TG NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
TG FLUID SYSTEMS USA CORPORATION, and A. RAYMOND, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_____________________
DECIDED: June 22, 2006
_____________________
Before MAYER, LOURIE, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
Honeywell International, Inc. and Honeywell Intellectual Properties, Inc.
(collectively “Honeywell”) appeal from the final decision of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granting summary judgment of
noninfringement of U.S. Patent 5,164,879 in favor of ITT Industrials, Inc., ITT
Automotive, Inc., TG North America Corporation, TG Fluid Systems USA Corporation,
and A. Raymond, Inc. (collectively “ITT/TG”). Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
Civ. No. 02-73948 (E.D. Mich. April 27, 2005). Because the district court correctly
construed the claim limitation “fuel system component” and determined that the accused
products do not meet that limitation, we affirm its grant of summary judgment of
noninfringement. We further conclude that under our modified construction of the claim
limitation “electrically conductive fibers,” the accused products do not meet that
limitation either, thereby providing a separate ground for affirming the district court’s
grant of summary judgment of noninfringement.
BACKGROUND
The ’879 patent, entitled “Electrostatically Dissipative Fuel System Component,”
discloses a fuel filter that is specially made for use in motor vehicles that have electronic
fuel injection (“EFI”) systems. Before motor vehicles began using EFI systems, the
housing of a fuel filter was commonly made of metal or a polymer material. ’879 Patent,
col.1 ll.10-12 (filed July 1, 1991). Once vehicles began using EFI systems, as the ’879
patent’s written description recognizes, fuel filters with polymer housing began to break
down and start leaking. Id., col.1 ll.17-20. It was discovered that the breakdowns were
caused by the contact between the fuel, which flows at a high velocity in EFI systems,
and the fuel filter’s polymer housing. The resultant friction strips electrons from the
hydrocarbon fuel and traps them in the non-conductive polymer housing, which leads to
an electrostatic charge buildup within the housing of the fuel filter. Id., col.1 ll.26-30.
The charge continues to build up until it finally discharges by “arcing” onto the vehicle’s
metal frame and becomes grounded. “Arcing” forms microscopic holes in the fuel filter’s
housing. Id., col.2 l.59 to col.3 l.2. When enough microscopic holes are formed, the
fuel begins to leak. Fuel filters with metal housing avoid the “arcing” phenomenon
because they allow no charge buildup. The conductive nature of metal prevents the
05-1407 2
electrons from being trapped inside the fuel filter and allows them to pass through to the
vehicle’s frame. Fuel filters with housing made of polymer material, however, are more
desirable than their metal housing counterparts because of their lower cost and weight.
Id., col.1 ll.13-14.
The patented invention addresses the “arcing” problem in fuel filters with polymer
housing by providing an electrically conductive pathway between the fuel filter and the
vehicle’s metal frame. Id., col.3 ll.41-43. The electrically conductive pathway prevents
the electrostatic charge from building up within the housing of the fuel filter. Id., col.3
ll.3-6. According to the written description, the electrically conductive pathway is
created by incorporating small amounts of a “conductive filler material” into the polymer
housing. Id., col.3 ll.47-51. The written description further discloses that stainless steel
is an ideal “conductive filler material” because it has high conductivity, allowing it to be
used in fibers with a high aspect ratio. Id., col.3 l.53 to col.4 l.13. The written
description also notes that stainless steel fibers are ductile, which allows them to better
maintain their integrity during melt-processing. Id. The benefits of stainless steel fibers
are contrasted in the written description to electrically conductive carbon fibers, which
are said to have less desirable characteristics, e.g., they must be used in fibers with
smaller aspect ratios, are more rigid, and act as stress concentrators. Id., col.3 ll.56-60;
col.4 ll.1-5.
Turning to the prosecution history of the patent in suit, the ’879 patent issued
from a divisional application of U.S. Patent Application 575,260, which issued as U.S.
Patent 5,076,920 and was entitled “Electrostatically Dissipative Fuel Filter.” Also issuing
from a divisional application of the ’260 application was U.S. Patent 5,164,084, also
05-1407 3
entitled “Electrostatically Dissipative Fuel Filter.” The drawing and written description
sections for the ’879, ’920, and ’084 patents appear to be identical. See Honeywell Int’l,
Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 330 F. Supp. 2d 865, 871 (E.D. Mich. 2004). The patent
examiner for the ’260 application issued a restriction requirement in that application
because it claimed three distinct inventions: (1) a method for preventing breakdown of
a fuel filter, (2) the fuel filter itself, and (3) a moldable polymeric material. Id. Faced
with this restriction requirement, the patentee chose the first invention for immediate
prosecution, a method for preventing breakdown of a fuel filter, and that became the
claimed subject matter of what issued as the ’920 patent. The patentee filed divisional
applications for the remaining inventions resulting in two other patents, the ’084 patent
(for a fuel filter) and the ’879 patent (for a moldable polymeric material), the patent at
issue in this case.
The ’879 application, as initially filed, was entitled “Electrostatically Dissipative
Fuel Filter” and contained one independent claim directed to a “moldable material for
fuel system components.”1 The patent examiner rejected the claim on the ground of,
inter alia, indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. According to the examiner, it was
“not clear what fuel system components [were] intended to be constructed of the
1
The ’879 application’s independent claim, as originally filed, read as follows:
Moldable material for fuel system components for
communicating fuel to the engine of a motor vehicle, said
motor vehicle having a common electrical plane maintained
at a common electrical potential, said material comprising a
polymer material having electrically conductive fibers
distributed randomly throughout the material to provide an
electrically conductive path through said components
between the fuel communicated through said components
and said common electrical plane.
05-1407 4
electrically conductive moldable material.” In addressing the indefiniteness rejection,
the patentee deleted the “moldable material for” language so that the claims were
directed to a “fuel system component.” The patentee also argued that the independent
claim was not indefinite because, although the specification only referred to fuel filters
and fuel lines, “it is Applicant’s position that he is entitled to a claim broad enough to
cover all fuel system components manufactured of the moldable material disclosed and
claimed in the specification.” While the application was pending, the title of the ’879
application was changed to “Electrostatically Dissipative Fuel System Component,”
because, the patentee contended, it “more accurately reflect[ed] the scope of the
claims.” After an interview between the patentee and examiner, which resulted in the
“arcing” limitation being added, the claims were allowed and the patent issued.
Following a reexamination proceeding, the sole independent claim was further amended
to recite “fuel injection system component” instead of “fuel system component” as the
subject matter of the claims.
On October 2, 2002, Honeywell filed suit against ITT/TG for infringement of the
’879 patent. Claim 1 of the ’879 patent, the patent’s only independent claim, provides
as follows:
Fuel injection system component for communicating fuel to
the engine of a motor vehicle, said motor vehicle having an
electrical plane maintained at a predetermined electrical
potential, said fuel system component being made of a
composite material comprising a polymer having electrically
conductive fibers distributed randomly throughout the
material to provide an electrically conductive path through
said component between the fuel communicated through
said component and said electrical plane, so that at least a
portion of the electrically conductive path extends through
the component to thereby prevent build-up of electrostatic
charge in the fuel and the resultant arcing which causes the
05-1407 5
breakdown of the polymer material comprising the fuel
injection system component.
The products accused of infringement are “quick connects” manufactured and sold by
ITT/TG. Quick connects are nut-like structures that join the various components of a
fuel injection system together, such as a fuel line to a fuel filter. The accused quick
connects have polymer housing that is interlaced with carbon fiber. ITT/TG denied the
charge of infringement, and the district court subsequently held a Markman hearing to
construe various limitations of the ’879 patent, including “fuel injection system
component” and “electrically conductive fiber.”
The district court construed the “fuel injection system component” limitation to
mean “a fuel filter.” In arriving at its construction, the court recognized that the ordinary
meaning of the term “refers to any constituent part of the fuel injection system of a
motor vehicle including, for example, fuel filters, fuel lines, and connectors.” Honeywell,
330 F. Supp. 2d at 878. The court also recognized that the patentee made statements
during the prosecution of the ’879 and ’084 applications that could be interpreted to
mean that the scope of the “fuel injection system component” limitation was broader
than only fuel filters, at least in the patentee’s view.
Notwithstanding the ordinary meaning or the prosecution history, the court
determined that the written description clearly limited the “fuel injection system
component” to a fuel filter, and that the statements in the prosecution history could not
be used to enlarge the content of the written description. Id. at 882-83. According to
the court, on several occasions in the written description, the “invention” was identified
to be only a fuel filter. Id. at 879. Moreover, the court explained, “[t]he entire
specification of the ’879 patent, as well as the sole drawing, describe the elements and
05-1407 6
operation of a fuel filter with electrically conductive fibers. No other parts are
described.” Id. Given the written description, the court concluded that “the patentee
characterized a fuel filter as the only embodiment of his invention, not merely a
‘preferred’ version of all possible embodiments.” Id. at 880.
The district court also construed the claim term “electrically conductive fibers” to
mean “fibers of a material that conducts electricity, including, without limitation, metal
and carbon.” Id. at 888. According to the court, that was the ordinary meaning of
“electrically conductive fibers.” The court gave the term its ordinary meaning despite a
detailed disclosure in the written description why metal fibers were preferable to carbon
fibers. Id. at 884. In the court’s view, the disclosure was “not like the clear specification
language defining the ‘invention’ as a fuel filter.” Id. The court determined that the
disclosure distinguishing metal and non-metal conductive fibers merely reflected the
patentee’s preferred embodiment. Id. at 884-85. The court further noted that the
written description never stated that carbon fibers could not be used as electrically
conductive fibers. Id.
After the court issued its claim construction, ITT/TG filed a motion for summary
judgment of noninfringement, which the court granted. In concluding that the accused
products did not infringe the ’879 patent, the court determined that quick connects are
not fuel filters, and thus they do not literally infringe. Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus.,
Inc., Civ. No. 02-73948, slip op. at 9 (E.D. Mich. May 17, 2005). Moreover, the court
found that quick connects do not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents because they
are not interchangeable with a fuel filter, and they do not compete commercially with
fuel filters. Id. The also court determined that Honeywell could not invoke the doctrine
05-1407 7
of equivalents to encompass the accused quick connects in view of the written
description’s identification of a fuel filter as “the present invention.” According to the
court, the patentee knew of fuel system components other than fuel filters, and that
because he limited the claims to a fuel filter, all other fuel system components were
dedicated to the public, and thus outside the reach of the doctrine of equivalents. Id.,
slip op. at 13-14.
The district court entered final judgment on April 27, 2005. Honeywell timely
appealed, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
DISCUSSION
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, reapplying the
same standard used by the district court. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical
Corp., 149 F.3d 1309, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Stratienko v. Cordis Corp., 429 F.3d 592,
597 (6th Cir. 2005). Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(c). “The evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable
inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
255 (1986). Claim construction is an issue of law, Markman v. Westview Instruments,
Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970-71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), that we also review de novo,
Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc).
I.
On appeal, Honeywell argues that the district court erred by limiting the “fuel
injection system component” limitation to a fuel filter and including no other component
of a fuel injection system. In doing so, Honeywell contends that the court imported a
05-1407 8
limitation from the specification into the claims and thereby improperly limited the scope
of the claims to the specification’s preferred embodiment. According to Honeywell,
nothing in the specification explicitly limits the claim term to a “fuel filter.” Honeywell
relies on a statement contained in the specification referring to “the metallic components
used in prior art systems,” ’879 Patent, col.1 ll.32-33, to argue that the term
“component” was meant to be broad. It also cites the patent’s abstract, which
summarized the invention using the term “component,” and the title of the patent as
amended, to further argue that the specification did not limit the “fuel injection system
component” to a fuel filter.
In addition, Honeywell points to the prosecution history in assigning error to the
district court’s construction of the “fuel injection system component” limitation.
According to Honeywell, the patentee stated during prosecution that the intended scope
of the claims was to include “all fuel components manufactured of the moldable material
disclosed and claimed in the specification.” Honeywell also notes that the patent
examiner issued a restriction requirement during prosecution of the ’084 application
(which also included claims to “fuel filters”) because “the fuel system component
[claims] do[ ] not specifically require that the component be a fuel filter.”
Mainly reiterating the points made by the district court in its claim construction
decision, ITT/TG responds that the claim term “fuel injection system component” was
correctly limited to a fuel filter. ITT/TG also argues, however, that the court erred in its
construction of the “electrically conductive fibers” limitation. ITT/TG contends that the
court should have construed that term to include only metal fibers with a high aspect
ratio, not carbon fibers. According to ITT/TG, the written description compared the
05-1407 9
properties of metal and carbon fibers, and “disparaged” the use of the latter as an
electrically conductive fiber. ITT/TG contends that there was a clear disavowal of
carbon fibers from the scope of the claims. Moreover, because the accused quick
connects are indisputably made with carbon fibers, ITT/TG asserts that there can be no
infringement either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
We agree with the district court that the claim term “fuel injection system
component” is limited to a fuel filter. In Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), this court recognized that “claims ‘must be read in view of
the specification, of which they are a part.’” We further stated that “the specification ‘is
always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is
the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Id. (internal citations omitted).
Here, the written description uses language that leads us to the conclusion that a fuel
filter is the only “fuel injection system component” that the claims cover, and that a fuel
filter was not merely discussed as a preferred embodiment. On at least four occasions,
the written description refers to the fuel filter as “this invention” or “the present
invention”:
This invention relates to a fuel filter for use in the fuel line
that delivers fuel to a motor vehicle engine. ’879 Patent,
col.1 ll.8-9.
According to the present invention, a fuel filter for a motor
vehicle is made from a moldable material which may be
safely used in vehicles equipped with electronic fuel injection
system. Id., col.1 ll.40-43.
This and other advantages of the present invention will
become apparent from the following descriptions, with
reference to the accompanying drawing, the sole Figure of
which is a cross-sectional view of a fuel filter made pursuant
05-1407 10
to the teachings of the present invention. . . . Id., col.1 ll.43-
49.
According to the present invention, an electrically conductive
path is provided between the fuel within the inlet cavity 42 [of
the fuel filter] and the [vehicle] body 38. Id., col.3 ll.41-43.
The public is entitled to take the patentee at his word and the word was that the
invention is a fuel filter.
Moreover, the written description does not indicate that a fuel filter is merely a
preferred embodiment of the claimed invention. The fuel filter was the only component
of an EFI system that the written description disclosed as having a polymer housing with
electrically conductive fibers interlaced therein. The only other fuel component
specifically mentioned in the written description, the fuel line, was not required by the
patentee to be made of an electrically conductive polymer material, as the claims
require. See id., col.1 ll.59-60 (stating that the “fuel line may also be made of a non-
conductive material”). The written description’s detailed discussion of the prior art
problem addressed by the patented invention, viz., leakage of non-metal fuel filters in
EFI systems, further supports the conclusion that the fuel filter is not a preferred
embodiment, but an only embodiment. Id., col.1 ll.10-25. Given the written
description’s disclosure, we conclude that the patentee has limited the scope of the ’879
patent claims to a fuel filter.
Nor are we persuaded by Honeywell’s argument that the patentee confirmed a
broader scope of his claims during prosecution. Honeywell relies mainly on the
patentee’s response to the examiner’s indefiniteness rejection in which he stated that
the claims cover “all fuel components manufactured of the moldable material disclosed
and claimed in the specification.” Honeywell places too much weight on that statement,
05-1407 11
as we find it to be ambiguous and possibly inconsistent with the written description.
After all, the only fuel component disclosed and claimed in the patent was a fuel filter.
In any event, such a broad and vague statement cannot contradict the clear statements
in the specification describing the invention more narrowly.
We also do not assign much weight to the patent examiner’s restriction
requirement with respect to claims for a “fuel filter” and a “fuel system component”
during prosecution of the ’084 application. In making the restriction requirement, the
examiner did not construe the claim term “fuel system component” or determine its
meaning in light of the written description. He merely required that the applicant elect
one aspect of his invention for prosecution without applying it to the specification.
Nevertheless, even if we were to agree with Honeywell that the patentee clearly
expressed his intention during prosecution to have the “fuel injection system
component” limitation include components in addition to a fuel filter, it would not change
the result in this case. As we determined above, the written description provides only a
fuel filter that is made with polymer housing and electrically conductive fibers interlaced
therein. No other fuel injection system component with the claimed limitations is
disclosed or suggested. Where, as here, the written description clearly identifies what
his invention is, an expression by a patentee during prosecution that he intends his
claims to cover more than what his specification discloses is entitled to little weight.
See Biogen, Inc. v. Berlex Labs., 318 F.3d 1132, 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (stating that
“[r]epresentations during prosecution cannot enlarge the content of the specification”).
We disagree, however, with the district court’s construction of the claim term
“electrically conductive fibers” to the extent that it encompasses carbon fibers. This
05-1407 12
court has recognized that “[w]here the specification makes clear that the invention does
not include a particular feature, that feature is deemed to be outside the reach of the
claims of the patent, even though the language of the claims, read without reference to
the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in
question.” Scimed Life Sys. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341
(Fed. Cir. 2001). It is true, as the district court noted, that the ’879 patent’s written
description did not expressly define “electrically conductive fibers,” as it did for “fuel
injection system component.” Nevertheless, based on the disclosure in the written
description, which demeaned the properties of carbon fibers, we conclude that the
patentee thereby disavowed carbon fibers from the scope of the ’879 patent’s claims.
The written description contains the following disclosure:
Stainless steel also has the advantage of requiring smaller
quantities for providing the required conductivity than other
conductive fillers, such as carbon black. ’879 Patent, col.3
ll.56-60 (emphasis added).
Other electrically conductive fillers, such as the
aforementioned carbon, act as stress concentrators and, at
the relatively high filler loadings required to achieve
conductivity, restrict the ability of the resin matrix to yield
under stress. Id., col.4 ll.1-5 (emphasis added).
Also, stainless steel fibers are ductile and non-rigid unlike
straight or metallized carbon fibers. . . . This allows stainless
steel fibers to maintain their integrity better during melt-
processing. Id., col.4 ll.5-10 (emphasis added).
Unlike the non-metallic fibers, stainless steel fibers also do
not increase mechanical strength or stiffness of the base
resin significantly. Other metal fibers with high aspect ratios
can be satisfactorily substituted for stainless steel. Id., col.4
ll.10-14 (emphasis added).
05-1407 13
In making the above statements, the patentee informed its readers specifically why
carbon fibers would not be suitable as “electrically conductive fibers” in the claimed
invention. If the written description could talk, it would say, “Do not use carbon fibers.”
There is no other way to interpret the written description’s listing of all the reasons that
metal fibers fare better than carbon fibers for use in the claimed invention, even though
both materials are electrically conductive, viz., that metal fibers require smaller
quantities to achieve the desired conductivity than carbon fibers, create less stress
concentration, are more ductile, are less rigid, and increase the mechanical strength of
the polymer housing. Contrary to the district court’s understanding, the written
description has gone beyond expressing the patentee’s preference for one material over
another. Its repeated derogatory statements concerning one type of material are the
equivalent of disavowal of that subject matter from the scope of the patent’s claims.
In reaching this decision, we reject Honeywell’s argument in support of the
district court’s construction of “electrically conductive fibers.” Honeywell argues that the
written description did identify carbon fibers as electrically conductive fibers, and that
stainless steel fibers were merely preferred embodiments. Honeywell’s argument
misses the point. It is precisely because the written description has identified carbon
fibers as electrically conductive, and yet it denigrated carbon fibers’ applicability to the
claimed invention, that we find a disavowal of that subject matter. Moreover, it is
irrelevant whether stainless steel fibers are a preferred embodiment of the claimed
invention. We are not here modifying the district court’s claim construction to limit its
scope to stainless steel fibers. We only modify it to exclude carbon fibers from the
scope of the ’879 patent claims.
05-1407 14
II.
Because Honeywell does not appeal the district court’s judgment of lack of literal
infringement, we turn to the question whether the accused quick connects infringe under
the doctrine of equivalents. Even if the district court correctly construed the “fuel
injection system component” limitation, Honeywell argues that the court erred in finding
that the accused quick connects do not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents as a
matter of law. According to Honeywell, although quick connects do not filter fuel like a
fuel filter, the ’879 claims do not require that the “fuel injection system component”
perform that function. Honeywell contends that the claims only require that the “fuel
injection system component” perform the functions of “communicat[ing] fuel to the
engine of a motor vehicle,” and “provid[ing] an electrically conductive path through said
component and [the] electrical plane.” Honeywell also asserts that the claims require
that the only result needed to be achieved is to “prevent the build-up of electrostatic
charge in the fuel and the resultant arcing which causes the breakdown of the polymer
material comprising the fuel injection system component.” Because, Honeywell argues,
the accused quick connects perform these functions in the same way as the fuel filter to
achieve the same result, there is infringement.
We agree with the district court that the fuel filter and quick connects are not
equivalent devices. They are substantially different. The accused quick connects do
not filter fuel. Once we agree with the district court to construe a fuel system
component to be a fuel filter, the fuel filter is not merely a limitation of the ’879 patent
claims. It is central to the patented invention. If one utilizes the conventional
function/way/result analysis, it is beyond question that the accused quick connects do
05-1407 15
not perform the function of the fuel filter. Any equivalent of a fuel filter must necessarily
perform the function of fuel filter—filtering fuel—in order to be an equivalent. As
Honeywell recognizes in its own brief, “a fuel filter inherently filters fuel.” Honeywell Op.
Br., at 49.
Having established that any structure equivalent to a fuel filter must substantially
perform the function of filtering fuel, we affirm the district court’s judgment of
noninfringement. Honeywell concedes in its brief, as it must, that the accused quick
connects do not perform the fuel filtering function. Honeywell Op. Br., at 47. Thus, no
reasonable trier of fact could find that these two structures are equivalent. Given that
quick connects do not perform substantially the same function as a fuel filter, there is no
need for us to conduct a further analysis of the way that the accused products perform
and the result of that performance.
We also conclude that the accused quick connects do not meet, either literally or
under the doctrine of equivalents, the “electrically conductive fibers” limitation as we
have construed it. There is of course no literal infringement because, as we have held
and Honeywell has admitted, a quick connect is not a fuel filter. There can also be no
infringement under the doctrine of equivalents because the accused quick connects use
carbon fibers, and such fibers were disavowed from the scope of the “electrically
conductive fibers” limitation, as we have discussed above. See J&M Corp. v. Harley–
Davidson, Inc., 269 F.3d 1360, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“The scope of equivalents may [ ]
be limited by statements in the specification that disclaim coverage of certain subject
matter.” Dawn Equip. Co. v. Ky Farms, Inc., 140 F.3d 1009, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
05-1407 16
CONCLUSION
Because the accused quick connects do not meet, literally or equivalently, the
“fuel injection system component” or “electrically conductive fibers” claim limitations, the
district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of the ’879 patent in favor
of ITT/TG is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
05-1407 17