Armstrong World Industries Inc v. Congoleum Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (Pennsylvania)
  • Defendant: Congoleum Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stevens & Lee, P.C.; Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:09-cv-3618, E.D. Pa., 09/03/2009
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Plaintiff's corporate headquarters being located in the district and Defendant conducting substantial business within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its resilient floor tile products do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,550,192 and that the patent is invalid.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns resilient floor tiles, a category of flooring designed to offer an alternative to more expensive materials like ceramic or natural stone.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that this action was filed after Defendant, Congoleum, allegedly made threats to Plaintiff’s retailers and wholesalers regarding infringement of the patent-in-suit. This followed Congoleum filing a separate infringement lawsuit against another competitor, Tarkett Enterprises, Inc., over the same patent, which establishes the basis for a justiciable controversy required for this declaratory judgment action.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-04-30	'192 Patent Priority Date
2009-06-23	'192 Patent Issue Date
2009-07-15	Defendant files suit against Tarkett Enterprises on '192 Patent
2009-09-03	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,550,192 - "Resilient Floor Tile"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,550,192, "Resilient Floor Tile," issued June 23, 2009 (’192 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes issues with prior art resilient floor tiles, particularly when installed with grout to simulate ceramic or stone flooring. Tiles with traditional square edges make grout installation difficult, and the exposed vertical edge can trap dirt and is susceptible to damage (’192 Patent, col. 1:45-56). Tiles with simple beveled edges often expose the underlying substrate when cut, requiring an extra painting step that can fail to match the tile's surface appearance (’192 Patent, col. 1:57-64).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a resilient floor tile with a specific multi-layer structure and a "contoured edge" (such as a convex, or rounded, edge) along its top perimeter (’192 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-17). This design allows for easier grout installation and better simulates the look of natural stone or ceramic tiles. A key aspect is that the decorative layer extends over this contoured edge, maintaining the pattern without "substantial[] distort[ion]" and avoiding the exposure of uncolored substrate material seen in prior art beveled tiles (’192 Patent, col. 2:22-26, Fig. 1A).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to create a resilient tile that more closely mimics the aesthetic of high-end grouted flooring while retaining the manufacturing and installation advantages of resilient tile products (’192 Patent, col. 2:4-6).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement as to "any valid claim of the '192 patent" and does not identify specific claims at issue (Compl. ¶15). The analysis below focuses on the broadest independent claim.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A resilient floor tile comprising a base with limestone and a binder present at less than 34% by weight, providing the tile with "rigidity".
  • A decorative layer.
  • The base and decorative layer together form a tile with a "top surface with a contoured edge along its perimeter".
  • The decorative layer "extends over at least a portion of the contoured edge".

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint broadly identifies the accused products as "various resilient floor tiles" and "various resilient vinyl floor tiles" manufactured and sold by Armstrong (Compl. ¶¶ 7-9).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical features, construction, or operation of the accused Armstrong tiles. It only notes that Armstrong and Congoleum are competitors in the U.S. market for resilient floor tile (Compl. ¶19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint is a declaratory judgment action seeking a finding of non-infringement and does not contain affirmative infringement allegations or a claim chart. Instead, it alleges that the Defendant has threatened Armstrong's customers with infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 8-9) and makes a general assertion that its products do not infringe either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶14). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of claim 1 of the ’192 Patent, the dispute between the parties may center on several key technical and legal questions:
  • Scope Questions: The primary dispute will likely concern the structure of the edge of Armstrong's tiles. The question for the court may be whether the edge profile of the accused tiles falls within the scope of the term "contoured edge" as used in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: An evidentiary dispute may arise regarding the composition of the accused tiles. Specifically, whether the base material of Armstrong's tiles contains "limestone" and a "binder present at a level less than 34% by weight", as required by claim 1. A further factual question is whether the decorative layer on the accused tiles "extends over at least a portion of the" edge, or if it terminates at the top surface.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "contoured edge"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central structural element of the invention, intended to distinguish the tile from prior art square-edged or simple beveled-edge tiles. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend heavily on how broadly or narrowly this term is construed.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: While the preferred embodiment is a "convex" edge, the specification also states that the edge "may include other contours or shapes, such as a flat, beveled edge," which could support an argument that the term is not limited to curved profiles (’192 Patent, col. 6:57-59).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract, summary of the invention, and detailed description repeatedly emphasize a "convex or rounded edge" as the solution to the problems of the prior art (’192 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:32-34; col. 6:60-61). A party could argue these repeated descriptions limit the claim scope to curved or rounded profiles that facilitate grouting.

• The Term: "rigidity"

• Context and Importance: This term, which describes a property of the tile, is directly linked in the claim to the specific composition of the base ("limestone, and a binder present at a level less than 34% by weight"). Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether it imposes a separate, functional limitation on the tile's flexibility or if it is merely a result of meeting the claimed compositional requirements.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim does not provide a quantitative measure for "rigidity", which may suggest it is a general characteristic achieved by meeting the compositional limitation, rather than a distinct, measurable property that must be separately proven.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links the binder content to the level of rigidity, stating that the "binder content of the base affects the level of rigidity" and that preferred embodiments have binder content of "approximately 20% or less by weight" or even "17% or less by weight" (’192 Patent, col. 4:55-62). This could be used to argue that "rigidity" implies a specific, non-flexible quality distinct from more pliable tiles.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that its products do not "indirectly" infringe any valid claim of the '192 patent (Compl. ¶15). However, the complaint provides no specific facts relating to inducement or contributory infringement for analysis.
• Willful Infringement: Willful infringement is not alleged in this declaratory judgment complaint.

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

This declaratory judgment action appears poised to center on fundamental questions of claim scope and validity. The key issues for the court will likely be:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "contoured edge," which the patent’s preferred embodiments describe as "convex or rounded," be construed to read on the specific edge profiles of Plaintiff's accused resilient tiles?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of factual correspondence: do Plaintiff's products actually possess the specific base composition (limestone with a binder level below 34%) required by the patent's independent claim, and does their decorative layer physically extend over the edge of the tile as claimed?

3. A parallel issue will be the question of validity: Plaintiff has alleged the ’192 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 112, and others (Compl. ¶11). The court will have to consider whether the patented invention was truly novel and non-obvious over the prior art at the time of the invention.