DCT
1:10-cv-00013
LECO Corp v. Clemex Tech Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: LECO Corporation (Michigan)
- Defendant: Clemex Technologies, Inc. (Canada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Price, Heneveld, Cooper, DeWitt & Litton, LLP
- Case Identification: 1:10-cv-00013, W.D. Mich., 01/07/2010
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on the defendant corporation transacting business in the judicial district and the presence of a subsidiary in Michigan.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Clemex CMT computerized hardness tester infringes patents related to data coding methods and indentation hardness testing systems.
- Technical Context: The technology domain primarily concerns systems for testing the hardness of materials, such as metallographic specimens, by creating and analyzing microscopic indentations.
- Key Procedural History: The '422 patent is identified on its face as a continuation of the application that matured into U.S. Patent No. 6,996,264, the other patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-04-18 | U.S. Patent No. 6,996,764 Priority Date |
| 2002-10-18 | U.S. Patent No. 7,139,422 Priority Date |
| 2006-02-07 | U.S. Patent No. 6,996,764 Issued |
| 2006-11-21 | U.S. Patent No. 7,139,422 Issued |
| 2010-01-07 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,996,764 - "CODING METHOD, RECORDING MEDIUM, DECODING METHOD, AND RECORDING-MEDIUM REPRODUCING APPARATUS"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,996,764, "CODING METHOD, RECORDING MEDIUM, DECODING METHOD, AND RECORDING-MEDIUM REPRODUCING APPARATUS," issued February 7, 2006. The complaint identifies this patent-in-suit as U.S. Patent No. 6,996,264, but the provided exhibit is the ’764 patent (Compl. ¶11).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of applying high-performance error-correcting codes, such as turbo codes, to data storage media like optical discs ('764 Patent, col. 2:18-28). The challenge arises because turbo decoders require "soft" probabilistic inputs, whereas conventional Run Length Limited (RLL) demodulators used in data storage provide "hard" binary (0 or 1) outputs, making the two systems incompatible ('764 Patent, col. 3:45-55).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a decoding apparatus and method where the RLL demodulator is specifically designed to process and generate "soft information" in the form of logarithmic-likelihood ratios ('764 Patent, col. 5:6-18). This allows the RLL demodulator to be integrated into an iterative turbo decoding feedback loop, enabling the use of powerful error correction to improve data reliability and density on the recording medium ('764 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The described solution enables the application of advanced error-correction techniques from the telecommunications field to the data storage field, which could permit higher recording densities on physical media ('764 Patent, col. 4:56-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶15).
- Claim 1 is a method claim comprising the following essential elements:
- subjecting information data sequentially to a convolutional coding by coding means,
- a pseudo-random substitution by interleaving means,
- and a Run Length Limited modulation by modulation means to thereby create channel data.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "at least" claim 1, thereby reserving the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶15).
U.S. Patent No. 7,139,422 - "INDENTATION HARDNESS TEST SYSTEM"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,139,422, "INDENTATION HARDNESS TEST SYSTEM," issued November 21, 2006.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a usability challenge in microscopic hardness testing. Operators must place precise indentations on a test specimen relative to its features, but this is difficult because high magnification (required for precision) offers a very narrow field of view, obscuring the larger context of the part's geometry ('422 Patent, col. 3:4-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a test system that captures a series of real-time images as an operator moves the specimen on a motorized stage. The system's processor then assembles, or "stitches," these individual image tiles into a single, large "composite image" based on the recorded stage coordinates for each tile ('422 Patent, Abstract). This composite image is displayed to the operator, providing a navigable, high-resolution map that shows both fine detail and broad context simultaneously ('422 Patent, col. 4:30-49; Fig. 5).
- Technical Importance: This system of creating a panoptic view addresses a fundamental workflow problem in micro-indentation testing, potentially improving the speed and accuracy with which operators can position test indents on a specimen ('422 Patent, col. 4:3-16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶15).
- Claim 1 is a system claim comprising the following essential elements:
- A hardware framework including a frame, indenter, movable stage, camera, display, processor, and memory subsystem;
- The memory subsystem stores executable code that instructs the processor to perform the steps of:
- capturing a series of real-time images of the part;
- obtaining associated stage coordinates for each image; and
- displaying a composite image of the part assembled from the series of real-time images according to their stage coordinates.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "at least" claim 1, thereby reserving the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶15).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is a "computerized hardness tester known as a Clemex CMT" (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Clemex CMT is a computerized hardness tester that Defendant manufactures, imports, offers for sale, and sells within the United States (Compl. ¶¶14-15). The complaint asserts that the accused tester includes features that "incorporate the subject matter of Leco's '264 and '422 patents" but does not provide specific technical details about the product's operation or features (Compl. ¶14). No further details on the product's commercial importance or market position are provided.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint provides a conclusory allegation that the accused product infringes "at least Claim 1 of each of the '264 and '422 patents" without presenting a detailed infringement theory or claim chart (Compl. ¶15).
'764 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| subjecting information data sequentially to a convolutional coding by coding means... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis. It does not allege any facts suggesting the accused "computerized hardness tester" performs a data coding method. | ¶¶14-15 | col. 5:10-14 |
| a pseudo-random substitution by interleaving means... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis. It alleges no facts related to the accused product performing data interleaving. | ¶¶14-15 | col. 5:14-16 |
| and a Run Length Limited modulation by modulation means to thereby create channel data. | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis. It alleges no facts indicating the accused product performs RLL modulation for creating channel data. | ¶¶14-15 | col. 5:16-18 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central issue is one of applicability: whether the claims of the '764 patent, which are directed to a "coding method" for recording data onto a medium, can be construed to read on the functions of a "computerized hardness tester" (Compl. ¶14). The complaint provides no factual allegations linking the accused product's function to the claimed data storage technology.
- Technical Questions: A threshold factual question is whether the Clemex CMT contains any components that perform the functions of a "convolutional coder," an "interleaver," and an "RLL modulator" as required by claim 1.
'422 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a frame including an attached indenter; a movable stage...; a camera...; a display; a processor...; and a memory subsystem... | The accused Clemex CMT is identified as a "computerized hardness tester," a product category that typically includes these standard hardware components (Compl. ¶14). | ¶14 | col. 4:31-37 |
| storing code that when executed instructs the processor to perform the steps of: capturing a series of real-time images of the part... | The complaint's allegation that the Clemex CMT incorporates the patent's subject matter suggests the product's software directs its processor and camera to capture images (Compl. ¶14). | ¶¶14-15 | col. 4:38-42 |
| obtaining associated stage coordinates for each of the real-time images; and | The description of the accused product as a "computerized hardness tester" implies a system capable of tracking stage coordinates (Compl. ¶14). | ¶¶14-15 | col. 4:43-44 |
| displaying a composite image of the part, wherein the composite image includes the series of real-time images assembled according to the associated stage coordinates. | The complaint alleges infringement by asserting the Clemex CMT incorporates the patented subject matter, which centers on the creation and display of a composite image (Compl. ¶14). | ¶¶14-15 | col. 4:45-49 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A key factual dispute will likely concern whether the Clemex CMT software actually performs the claimed step of "assembling" multiple, distinct images into a single "composite image" based on stage coordinates. The complaint lacks specific factual allegations detailing how the accused product operates.
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the definition of "assembled." Does this term require the "stitching" of image tiles into a seamless mosaic as depicted in the patent's figures, or could it more broadly cover other methods of displaying data from multiple captures?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "composite image" ('422 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is the central feature of the '422 patent's asserted claim. The entire infringement question for this patent will likely depend on whether the accused product creates what can be legally defined as a "composite image." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether simply displaying multiple images or overlays meets the claim, or if a more specific "stitching" of images into a larger, single picture is required.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the plain meaning of "composite" simply means "made up of various parts or elements," suggesting any display combining data from multiple images could qualify.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes a process of assembling images to show portions of the part that have passed under the objective lens, and Figure 5 explicitly depicts separate image frames (402, 404) being combined into a larger, panoramic image (500) ('422 Patent, col. 6:8-13; Fig. 5). This may support a narrower construction requiring a mosaic-like assembly of adjacent image tiles.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a boilerplate allegation of contributory and induced infringement but offers no specific factual support, such as references to user manuals, marketing materials, or other evidence of intent (Compl. ¶15).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the infringement "has been and continues to be willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶16). It does not allege any facts to support pre-suit knowledge of the patents, such as prior correspondence or litigation.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Factual Applicability: A primary issue for the '764 patent is one of technical relevance. The court will need to address the fundamental question of whether a hardness testing instrument performs the specific data coding and modulation method claimed in a patent directed to error correction for data storage media, a connection for which the complaint currently lacks factual support.
- Evidentiary Sufficiency: For the '422 patent, the case will likely depend on an evidentiary question: does the accused Clemex CMT's software perform the specific, claimed function of "assembling" a "series of real-time images" into a single entity for display, or does it utilize alternative, non-infringing imaging techniques?
- Definitional Scope: A critical legal question for the '422 patent will be the construction of the term "composite image." The outcome may hinge on whether the term is interpreted broadly to encompass any combined view of image data, or more narrowly, as suggested by the specification's embodiments, to require a seamless, stitched mosaic of adjacent image views.