NYSTROM v. TREX Co. (Fed. Cir. June 28, 2004).
In an appeal of a summary judgment in a patent infringement case involving specially manufactured boards for decking, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded. (US Patent 5,474,831).
Because the district court erred in its constructions of the claim terms “board,” “manufactured to have,” and “convex top surface,” the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement of claims 1-15 of the ’831 patent is reversed.
The panel also reversed the district court’s judgment of invalidity.
The district court’s acceptance of TREX’s invalidity arguments based on models made from drawings contained in the Zagelmeyer patent was incorrect. The basis of the district court’s summary judgment of invalidity was a model that TREX developed based on that reference, and not on drawing dimensions or a written disclosure of dimensions contained directly in the patent itself. Under the principles set forth in our prior cases, the speculative modeling premised on unstated assumptions in prior art patent drawings cannot be the basis for challenging the validity of claims reciting specific dimensions not disclosed directly in such prior art. Thus, we conclude that the district court erred in granting summary judgment of invalidity based on TREX’s models.
In dissent, Judge Gajarsa found that the term “board” should be limited to wooden boards.