## Facts

- Epcon Gas Systems, Inc. and Norman S. Loren (Epcon) were exclusive licensees of U.S. Patent No. 5,118,455 covering gas-assisted resin injection molding.
- Epcon asserted claim 2 (method) and claim 16 (apparatus) against Bauer Compressors, Inc., which sold nitrogen control units (NCUs) used in gas-assisted injection molding.
- Claim 2 required injecting gas into a mold at a pressure “substantially below” the stored-gas supply pressure and, after initial injection but before venting, selectively increasing, decreasing, or maintaining mold-gas pressure as needed.
- Claim 16 recited an apparatus with “control means” for injecting and selectively adjusting mold-gas pressure, and was treated as a means-plus-function claim.
- Epcon sued in the Eastern District of Michigan alleging Bauer’s sales and demonstrations of the NCU infringed the patent, directly and/or through induced or contributory infringement.
- The district court granted Bauer summary judgment of noninfringement on both claims, treating claim 2 as subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 step-plus-function analysis largely by importing its analysis of claim 16; it denied Bauer’s request to deem the case “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
- Epcon appealed the claim 2 construction and the resulting noninfringement judgment; Bauer cross-appealed the denial of “exceptional case” status.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by construing method claim 2 as containing a step-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
2. Whether, under the proper construction of claim 2, summary judgment of noninfringement was warranted.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by declining to declare the case “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed summary judgment of noninfringement as to claim 2 and remanded for trial.
- The court held the district court erred in applying § 112 ¶ 6 to claim 2 because claim 2 did not use “step for” language (or an equivalent) reciting a function without reciting the acts for performing it.
- The court concluded the record contained sufficient evidence to raise a genuine dispute of material fact on infringement of claim 2 when construed as an ordinary method claim, including evidence tied to Bauer’s demonstrations, sales, and customer use of the NCU.
- The court left undisturbed the noninfringement disposition as to claim 16.
- The court affirmed the denial of Bauer’s motion to deem the case exceptional under § 285.

## Legal Principles

- A method claim is not construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 as step-plus-function absent “step for” language (or its equivalent) that states a function without stating the acts that perform the function.
- Courts must construe each claim based on its own language; means-plus-function treatment of an apparatus claim cannot be imported into a related method claim without an independent textual basis.
- On summary judgment, if the district court’s noninfringement ruling rests on an erroneous claim construction and the nonmovant has evidence from which a reasonable jury could find infringement under the correct construction, summary judgment is improper.
- “Exceptional case” determinations under 35 U.S.C. § 285 require clear support in the record (commonly inequitable conduct, bad faith, litigation misconduct, or frivolousness) and are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that method claim 2 was improperly narrowed by step-plus-function construction, reversed summary judgment of noninfringement as to that claim and remanded for trial, while leaving the claim 16 result intact and affirming the denial of attorneys’ fees under § 285.


Epcon Gas Sys., Inc. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc., 279 F.3d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2002)