ATOFINA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREAT LAKES CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee., 441 F.3d 991

Summary

The infringement issue turned on the claim construction of "chromium catalyst." The appellate court agreed with the district court's construction of "chromium catalyst" as a catalyst where the only catalytically active material was chromium without addition of metal oxides or non-inert additives. The intrinsic record supported that interpretation. The prosecution history confirmed a construction of "chromium catalyst" that excluded metal oxides and non-inert additives. The district court correctly found that defendant did not infringe plaintiff's properly construed claims. However, the district court clearly erred in finding that the Japanese publication anticipated the '514 patent. The district court's determination that the publication disclosed the temperature range in claims 1,2, 6, 7,9, and 10 was grounded in its erroneous application of Titanium Metals. The district court clearly erred in finding that the publication disclosed the temperature range, the range of oxygen to ...