DCT

0:05-cv-00824

Andersen Corp v. Pella Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 0:05-cv-00824, D. Minn., 04/25/2005
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Minnesota on the basis that both defendants are actively and regularly engaged in conducting business within the state.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ less visible insect screens infringe a patent related to technology for manufacturing screens with high light transmittance and low reflectance.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns fenestration products, specifically improving the visual clarity of insect screens by manipulating their physical and optical properties to make them less obtrusive.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation-in-part of a prior application, which may be relevant for determining the effective filing date of certain claims. The complaint does not mention any other prior litigation or proceedings.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-02-06 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,880,612
2005-04-19 U.S. Patent No. 6,880,612 Issues
2005-04-25 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,880,612 - "Reduced Visibility Insect Screen"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,880,612, "Reduced Visibility Insect Screen," issued April 19, 2005 (the "’612 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that conventional insect screens are widely considered unattractive because they obstruct the view from inside a building and detract from the home's exterior appearance due to low light transmission and/or high reflection (’612 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a screening that is less visible to an observer by maximizing light transmission and minimizing light reflection. This is achieved through a combination of using very thin screen elements (i.e., wires), selecting materials with high tensile strength to allow for thinner elements, and applying a dark, non-reflective, matte finish to the screen elements (’612 Patent, col. 1:60-67; col. 2:25-35). The patent quantifies the desired outcome with specific thresholds for light transmittance and reflectance.
  • Technical Importance: The technology seeks to make insect screens functionally "invisible" to the ordinary observer, thereby improving the aesthetics of windows and doors without sacrificing the screen's purpose of excluding insects (’612 Patent, col. 1:12-19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. ¶14). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
  • Independent Claim 1: An apparatus claim for a screening in a fenestration unit with the following essential elements:
    • A reduced visibility insect screening in a fenestration unit that permits ventilation therethrough
    • having a transmittance of light of at least 0.75
    • and a reflectance of light of 0.04 or less

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused products generally as "less visible screens and/or their components" made, used, or sold by the Defendants (Compl. ¶14). No specific product names are provided.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality, features, or market position beyond the general allegation that they are "less visible screens" (Compl. ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides only a conclusory allegation of infringement, stating that Defendants have infringed by "making, using, licensing, offering to sell, and/or selling less visible screens and/or their components" (Compl. ¶14). It does not contain a claim chart or any specific factual allegations mapping the features of an accused product to the elements of any asserted claim. Therefore, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible based on the complaint alone.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Given the bare nature of the allegations, any infringement analysis will depend entirely on evidence developed during discovery. The central dispute for a claim like Claim 1 will be a factual and evidentiary one: do the accused screens sold by Pella, which may incorporate materials from Gore, possess the specific optical properties claimed in the patent?

  • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the proper methodology for measuring the claimed "transmittance" and "reflectance" values. The ’612 Patent specification details a specific testing procedure using a particular spectrophotometer (’612 Patent, col. 7:8-67). The question will be whether the claims require this specific test or if other standard measurement techniques are permissible.
  • Technical Questions: The primary technical question for the court will be whether the accused products, when tested, actually meet the numerical limitations of "at least 0.75" for transmittance and "0.04 or less" for reflectance required by the claims (’612 Patent, col. 15:61-64).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "transmittance of light of at least 0.75"

  • Context and Importance: This quantitative limitation is the core of Claim 1. Infringement hinges on whether an accused product meets this objective threshold. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could be tied to the specific measurement protocol disclosed in the patent, potentially narrowing the claim's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as understood in the field of optics, not limited to any single measurement technique.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed "Reflectance & Transmittance Testing Procedure," including the specific equipment ("Macbeth Color-Eye 7000 spectrophotometer") and settings ("BTIILL") used to generate the data supporting the patent (’612 Patent, col. 7:8-67). A party could argue that this disclosure defines the specific method by which "transmittance" must be measured for infringement purposes.

The Term: "reflectance of light of 0.04 or less"

  • Context and Importance: Similar to transmittance, this is a dispositive numerical threshold. The method of measurement will be critical to the infringement determination.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue for a plain meaning construction based on general principles of optical measurement.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent details a specific testing procedure for reflectance, including particular instrument settings ("CRILL") (’612 Patent, col. 7:27-41). A party may argue that this detailed procedure implicitly defines the scope of the claimed "reflectance," requiring that an accused product be measured in the same way to infringe.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes a conclusory allegation of contributory and induced infringement (Compl. ¶15). It does not, however, plead any specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for such claims, such as referencing defendant-authored instructions or marketing materials that encourage infringement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It does request that the court declare the case "exceptional" and award attorneys' fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl., Prayer for Relief (d)). However, it pleads no facts regarding pre-suit knowledge of the patent that would typically support a willfulness claim.

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

  • A central issue will be one of evidence and measurement: Will discovery reveal that Defendants' accused screens meet the specific quantitative thresholds for light transmittance (≥ 0.75) and reflectance (≤ 0.04) as laid out in the patent's claims? The outcome may depend heavily on dueling expert reports and product testing.
  • A key legal question will be one of claim scope: Will the court construe the terms "transmittance" and "reflectance" as being limited to the highly specific testing protocols detailed in the ’612 Patent’s specification? Such a narrow construction could make it more difficult for the Plaintiff to prove infringement.
  • A fundamental question of liability will be the respective roles of the two defendants. The case will need to establish the relationship between Pella, a fenestration product manufacturer, and W. L. Gore & Associates, a specialty materials supplier, to determine the proper basis for direct, induced, or contributory infringement against each.