IP News

On April 9, 2013, the International Trade Commission issued a Notice of Commission Decision in In the Matter of Certain Wiper Blades, Inv. No. 337-TA-816, reversing two initial determinations (“IDs”) of Chief Administrative Law Judge Charles E. Bullock (“ALJ”), and remanding the investigation for further proceedings. The complainant, Robert Bosch LLC, sued a number of wiper blade manufacturers and distributors in October 2011, asserting nine patents covering various aspects of beam-type wiper blade technology developed by Bosch.

On Aug. 31, 2012, the ALJ issued a claim construction Order, and on Oct. 2, 2012, he issued two IDs granting respondents' motions for Summary Determination. The first ID found that claims from four asserted patents were invalid for failing to satisfy the definiteness requirements of 35 U.S.C. ' 112, and the second ID found that the accused products sold by a group of respondents (“the Pylon respondents”) did not infringe any of the claims from five asserted patents. Upon review, the Commission reversed all indefiniteness findings, determining that “the respondents have not provided clear and convincing evidence that any of the claim terms at issue are invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. ' 112(b).” Slip Op. at 3. The Commission then construed the indefinite terms, mostly agreeing to the constructions proposed by Bosch. The Commission also reversed the ALJ's narrow construction of the term “support element.” The ALJ construed this term to exclude the support bracket structure ordinarily found in conventional wiper blades. The Commission found “no clear disavowal of brackets as to the 'support element' limitation in the asserted patents at issue” and construed “support element” to have a plain and ordinary meaning. Id. at 4. Because the ALJ's finding of no infringement by the Pylon respondents was based on the erroneous claim construction, the Commission reversed the non-infringement ID.