IP Law Daily, PATENT—E.D. Wis.: Invalidity and non-infringement analysis raised fact questions precluding summary judgment in automatic car wash dispute, (Jul 12, 2021)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Several questions of fact existed in a patent dispute related to an automatic car wash system, precluding summary judgment on all but one claim.

Questions of invalidity and infringement could not be decided on summary judgment in a dispute over a car wash system patent, the federal district court in Green Bay has held. Competing experts and other evidence showed genuine questions of material fact as to all but one of the asserted claims (Wash World Inc. v. Belanger Inc., July 8, 2021, Griesbach, W.).

Wash World, Inc. brought a suit for declaratory judgment that its automated car wash products did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,602,041 (the ’041 patent). Belanger, Inc. was the assignee of the ’041 patent, which was directed at various lighting components of an automated car wash system. Belanger argued that Wash World’s Razor EDGE car wash system, the Razor combined with a LumenArch/Spectra Ray lighting system, and the Razor or Razor XR-7 combined with a LumenArch—infringed Independent Claims 1, 7, and 15 of the ’041 patent. Wash World moved for summary judgment.

Invalidity. Wash World argued that the ’041 patent was invalid on the grounds of lack of enablement and lack of written description because the patent did not define the term "wash area" in reference to which of the various arms and lights of the automatic car wash system were to move. Belanger presented expert testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the term "wash area" and would have understood and practiced the patent based on the written description. The court held that this was a dispute of material fact and denied summary judgment.

Direct infringement. Wash World argued its LumenArch product did not infringe claims 1 or 5 because it did not contain a control system as the patent required. The patent described a controls system that places the light system’s arm in a target position when a vehicle enters the wash area. Because the accused products could not be moved into a "target position" in response to a vehicle entering the wash area, they could not infringe the patent. The court granted summary judgment of non-infringement with regard to that claim. However, the court denied summary judgment on all of the remaining claims because there were questions of fact and disputed evidence relating to the nature of the products, such as whether certain lines of lights intersected or whether a spray arm was mounted to a carriage or trolley.

Doctrine of equivalents. Belanger argued that even if there was no direct infringement, the Razor and Razor XR-7, when either is combined with the LumenArch, infringed Independent Claim 15 under the doctrine of equivalents, meaning that the differences between the two were insubstantial. The court noted conflicting testimony and an unclear record on whether several elements were functionally the same and denied summary judgment.

The case is No. 19-C-1562.

Attorneys: Joseph S. Heino (Davis & Kuelthau SC) for Wash World Inc. Christopher Dillon (Fish & Richardson PC) for Belanger Inc.

Companies: Wash World Inc.; Belanger Inc.

Cases: Patent WisconsinNews GCNNews