DCT

1:10-cv-00050

ArcelorMittal France v. Ak Steel Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:10-cv-00050, D. Del., 01/22/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the defendants are Delaware corporations.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ aluminum coated boron steel products infringe a patent related to high-strength, coated steel sheets suitable for thermal treatment after shaping.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced steel alloys, primarily for the automotive industry, that allow for the formation of complex parts which are then hardened to provide high strength and impact resistance.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff ArcelorMittal France previously provided notice of infringement to Defendant AK Steel prior to the filing of the lawsuit. Notice to the other defendants is asserted to be effective upon the filing of the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-07-09 '805 Patent Priority Date
2001-10-02 '805 Patent Issue Date
2010-01-22 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 6,296,805 - "COATED HOT- AND COLD-ROLLED STEEL SHEET COMPRISING A VERY HIGH RESISTANCE AFTER THERMAL TREATMENT"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,296,805, "COATED HOT- AND COLD-ROLLED STEEL SHEET COMPRISING A VERY HIGH RESISTANCE AFTER THERMAL TREATMENT," issued October 2, 2001.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a fundamental trade-off in manufacturing high-strength steel parts: steel that is soft enough for complex shaping (e.g., stamping) typically lacks the final required mechanical strength, while pre-hardened steel is difficult or impossible to shape ('805 Patent, col. 1:7-13). Performing a thermal hardening treatment after shaping solves this, but this high-temperature process can cause decarbonization and oxidation of the steel, and conventional protective coatings often fail during such treatments ('805 Patent, col. 1:13-25).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a steel sheet with a specific chemical composition (including ranges for carbon, manganese, silicon, chromium, boron, and other elements) that is pre-coated with an aluminum-based layer ('805 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:50-64). This allows the sheet to be easily shaped while in a ductile state. Subsequently, a high-temperature thermal treatment hardens the steel to a very high mechanical resistance (e.g., >1500 MPa), with the aluminum coating protecting the base metal from oxidation and degradation during the process ('805 Patent, col. 2:49-57; col. 3:51-59).
  • Technical Importance: This technology enables the production of lightweight, yet extremely strong and crash-resistant, automotive components like bumper bars and structural reinforcements by combining the formability of softer steel with the final strength of a hardened alloy, while providing corrosion resistance from the outset ('805 Patent, col. 2:31-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the '805 patent without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶¶11-13). Independent claim 1 is foundational.
  • Independent Claim 1: A hot-rolled coated steel sheet comprising:
    • A hot-rolled steel sheet coated with an aluminum or aluminum alloy coating.
    • Wherein the steel sheet comprises a specific composition by weight:
      • 0.15% < carbon < 0.5%
      • 0.5% < manganese < 3%
      • 0.1% < silicon < 0.5%
      • 0.01% < chromium < 1%
      • titanium < 0.2%
      • aluminum < 0.1%
      • phosphorus < 0.1%
      • sulfur < 0.05%
      • 0.0005% < boron < 0.08%
    • The remainder being iron and inherent impurities.
    • The sheet having a very high mechanical resistance after thermal treatment.
    • The coating providing a high resistance to corrosion.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "aluminum coated boron steel products" that are made, used, sold, or offered for sale by the Defendants (Compl. ¶¶11-13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not identify specific product names, models, or their precise functions. The allegations are directed at a category of material—"aluminum coated boron steel"—which suggests the dispute centers on the fundamental composition and properties of steel sheet products sold by the Defendants, likely for applications in the automotive or other industries requiring high-strength, formable metal (Compl. ¶¶11-13). The complaint does not provide further detail regarding the products' market positioning. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of infringement on a limitation-by-limitation basis. The infringement allegations are pleaded generally, stating that Defendants' "aluminum coated boron steel products" infringe "one or more claims of the '805 patent" (Compl. ¶¶11-13). No claim chart or specific mapping of accused product characteristics to claim elements is provided.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: The compositional ranges of Claim 1 (e.g., "0.0005%<boron<0.08%").
  • Context and Importance: As Claim 1 is a composition claim, infringement will be determined primarily by a factual analysis of the chemical makeup of the accused products. Practitioners may focus on these ranges because any deviation, however small, could be dispositive of non-infringement. The precise boundaries of these ranges, and how they are measured, will be critical.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses open-ended ranges ("<" and ">") rather than closed ones ("between X and Y"), which a party might argue should be interpreted to not exclude trace amounts just outside the recited boundaries, especially if measurement techniques have inherent variability. The specification provides a preferred, narrower embodiment, which could imply the main claim is meant to be broader ('805 Patent, col. 5:21-31).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a strict interpretation would contend that the numeric ranges are precise limits. The patent's abstract and detailed examples provide specific compositions that fall squarely within the claimed ranges, suggesting these values are not arbitrary and are essential to achieving the invention's properties of high strength and post-treatment coating integrity ('805 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:38-43).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been and continues to be willful (Compl. ¶15). The stated basis is that Plaintiff "has previously given notice to AK Steel of its infringement" and that the filing of the complaint constitutes notice to the other two Defendants (Compl. ¶14).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A central question will be one of factual composition: Does a chemical analysis of the Defendants' accused "aluminum coated boron steel products" demonstrate that their constituent elements fall within the specific weight-percentage ranges recited in the asserted claims of the '805 patent? The case will likely depend heavily on expert testimony and metallurgical testing.
  • A second issue will be willfulness: For Defendant AK Steel, what was the content and timing of the alleged pre-suit notice, and did it create an objectively high likelihood of infringement that was known or should have been known? For all Defendants, the complaint's filing serves as notice, raising the question of whether their continued conduct post-filing could be considered willful.