Automotive Technologies International, Inc. v. Bmw Of North America, Inc.

501 F.3d 1274 (2007)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P's patent involves crash sensing devices for deployment in cars during an impact or crash involving the side of a vehicle. The invention is directed to a velocity-type sensor placed in a position within a vehicle in order to sense a side impact. A velocity-type sensor is a sensor that triggers when a velocity change sensed in a crash exceeds a threshold value. The prior art for sensing side impacts were crush sensors--devices configured to trigger only when crushed or deformed, thereby closing a circuit. Crush sensors are deficient in that they will not trigger during a crash in which a side door is not hit directly but the impact is severe enough such that the occupant would need the protection of an airbag. Velocity sensors can be adjusted to a desired sensitivity to detect a side impact and deploy an airbag, even though the side door is not directly hit. P discovered that velocity-type sensors when properly designed could successfully and timely operate to deploy an airbag in a side collision. The patent provided a detailed explanation of a mechanical sensor assembly such that one skilled in the art could duplicate it. The specification stated that electronic sensors may be used. The electronic version of the patent provided a 'conceptional view of an electronic sensor assembly 201 built according to the teachings of this invention. This sensor contains a sensing mass 202 which moves relative to housing 203 in response to the acceleration of housing 203 which accompanies a side-impact crash.' The specification further states that the motion of the sensing mass 'can be sensed by a variety of technologies using, for example, optics, resistance change, capacitance change or magnetic reluctance change.' This enablement on the electronic side was less detailed from the mechanical depiction. P filed a complaint against Ds alleging infringement of the '253 patent. The district court conducted a Markman hearing, and, issued an order construing the relevant claims. The court construed the phrase, 'means responsive to the motion of said mass upon acceleration of said housing in excess of a predetermined threshold value, for initiating an occupant protection apparatus.' The court found, that the limitation was in means-plus-function format and that the stated function is initiating an occupant protection apparatus. P contended that the invention included not only mechanical switch assemblies but also electronic switch assemblies, as identified in the specification. Ds claimed that the only clearly linked structure identified in the specification is a mechanical switch assembly. The court found no issues with the enablement on the mechanical side. The court found the enablement on the electronic side wholly inadequate. Delphi (D) filed a motion for summary judgment that the claims that cover an electronic side impact sensor are invalid for lack of enablement. The court determined that the specification failed to enable electronic sensors for sensing side impacts by failing to provide sufficient details to teach a person of ordinary skill in the art how to make and use an electronic sensor. It held that the specification 'fails to disclose reasonable basic enabling structure to show how one skilled in the art would use existing electronic sensing technologies to achieve the desired novel characteristics of an electronic acceleration sensor.' The district court considered the Wands factors and relying on testimony from D's expert and P's expert, it found that the factors of quantity of experimentation necessary, the amount of direction or guidance presented in the specification, and the absence of a working example favored a finding of lack of enablement. P appealed. P argues that because one embodiment of the invention is enabled, the enablement requirement is satisfied. D claims that the specification must enable the full scope of the claims as construed by the court, and the full scope of the claims includes mechanical side impact sensors and electronic side impact sensors.