Xinyi Continues to Push for New Trial or Modified/Vacated
Damages in $24 Million Patent Infringement Suit; Contends "Centering"
Needs Clear Definition
June 23, 2010
Xinyi Glass North America and Xinyi Automobile Glass Co. Ltd. continue
to push for a new trial in the recent patent infringement suit against
them resulting in a $24 million judgement, payable to plaintiff
Saint-Gobain. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio had ruled against it in April, but Xinyi had motioned for
a new trial, and, after a recent objection from Saint-Gobain, Xinyi
has filed a renewed motion for the damages to be vacated or modified
or for a new trial to be held. (CLICK
HERE for related story.)
The suit focuses on two Saint-Gobain patents, titled "Spacer
for Windshield Bracket," which the company claims is the "first
spacer being provided with means for centering and aligning the
glazing upon the bracket," and "Method of Centering Windshield
Glazings," which addresses the way that the lip portion of
the spacer contacts the bracket "to provide a force for centering
which force is sufficient to maintain centering
on the glazing on the bracket." Saint-Gobain alleges that Xinyi
has infringed upon both of these by manufacturing windshields with
One major point of contention in the trial has been the definition
"Even now, Saint-Gobain's construction of 'centering' is a
mystery," writes Xinyi in its latest renewed motion. "In
response to Xinyi's assertion that 'non-skewed' requires a force
that moves the windshield from a skewed to a non-skewed position,
Saint-Gobain howls 'nonsense' and 'ridiculous.' Yet 'centering'
is a verb, requiring an action. When, then, is it 'nonsense' to
assume that 'a force for centering' requires forcing the windshield
from a skewed to a non-skewed position? And, if it doesn't mean
that, then what does it mean?"
"The problem in this case is that no one seems to know the
answer to that question-even now, after a jury verdict and an award
of enhanced damages
" continues the motion. "Given
these facts a new trial is required, following a Markman
hearing that formally construes 'centering.'"
Xinyi goes on to allege that though Saint-Gobain had told the court
that it should adopt the "ordinary meaning of 'centering,'"
during the course of the trial it defined centering as "non-skewed,"
according to court documents.
"If 'non-skewed' was Saint-Gobain's desired construction for
'centering,' it should have clearly presented that construction
during the Markman proceedings, rather than hiding behind
the false veil of 'ordinary meaning' and 'no construction necessary,'
which it quickly abandoned the moment trial began," writes
Because this definition wasn't presented early on, Xinyi claims
that it was "severely prejeduced
at all stages of this
Had Saint-Gobain presented 'non-skewed' as its actual
construction of 'centering,' it would have been required to rebut
the presumption that the ordinary meaning of 'centering' applied,"
reads the motion. "It would have also been forced to identify
where the intrinsic record provides support for 'non-skewed,' a
special definition that is contrary to the ordinary meaning, and
Xinyi would have had an opportunity to attack that proof. Instead,
Saint-Gobain was allowed to proceed to trial unchallenged on these
In addition, Xinyi argues that Saint-Gobain did not prove infringement
using the "non-skewed" definition of "centering,"
and that it was never "determined whether the lips of Xinyi's
products were capable of forcing a windshield from a skewed to a
The company also continues to argue that Saint-Gobain failed "to
prove that each of the 277,645 accused Xinyi products included in
its damages calculations directly infringed one of the asserted
claims," and that this would have impacted the monetary damages
awarded in the ruling.
Lastly, Xinyi argues that Saint-Gobain's "copying argument"
was irrelevant, unsubstantiated and highly prejudicial, leaving
cause for a new trial. The company also states in its latest motion
that the jury's finding that Xinyi was liable for infringement "is
simply the tail wagging the dog."
"As set forth in Xinyi's opening brief, Saint-Gobain did not
properly establish infringement," writes Xinyi. "Thus,
the jury likely reached its finding of infringement because it was
confused by Saint-Gobain's improper argument that Xinyi had 'copied'
Saint-Gobain's commercial products."
Xinyi request that the court grant a new judgment of non-infringement
and should vacate or modify the jury's damages, or grant a new trial.
The renewed motion was penned by Xinyi counsel James F. McCarthy
III of Katz, Teller, Brant & Hild in Cincinnati.
Need more info and analysis about the issues?
HERE to subscribe to AGRR magazine.