Case: 18-1725 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 11/07/2018
`
`Nos. 18-1725, -1784
`
`IN THE
`United States Court of Appeals
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`GREEN MOUNTAIN GLASS, LLC, CULCHROME, LLC,
`Plaintiffs - Cross-Appellants,
`
`V.
`SAINT-GOBAIN CONTAINERS, INC., DBA VERALLIA NORTH AMERICA,
`Defendant - Appellant.
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the District of Delaware, in No. 1:14-cv-392-GMS
`
`CORRECTED RESPONSE AND OPENING CROSS-APPEAL
`BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS - CROSS-APPELLANTS
`GREEN MOUNTAIN GLASS, LLC AND CULCHROME, LLC
`
`Justin A. Nelson
`SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP
`1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
`Houston, TX 77002
`(713) 651-9366 (telephone)
`(713) 654-6666 (facsimile)
`jnelson@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Jeffrey A. Lamken
` Counsel of Record
`Benjamin T. Sirolly
`MOLOLAMKEN LLP
`The Watergate, Suite 660
`600 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20037
`(202) 556-2000 (telephone)
`(202) 556-2001 (facsimile)
`jlamken@mololamken.com
`Counsel for Plaintiffs - Cross-Appellants
`Green Mountain Glass, LLC and CulChrome, LLC
`
`(Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover)
`
`O-I Glass, Inc.
`Exhibit 1071
`O-I Glass v. Culchrome
`IPR2020-01068
`
`Ex. 1071-001
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1725 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 11/07/2018
`
`(
`
`Matthew R. Berry
`John E. Schiltz
`SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
`1201 Third Ave., Suite 3800
`Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 516-3880 (telephone)
`(206) 516-3883 (facsimile)
`
`Justin B. Weiner
`MOLOLAMKEN LLP
`300 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 5350
`Chicago, IL 60654
`(312) 450-6700 (telephone)
`(312) 450-6701 (facsimile)
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs - Cross-Appellants
`Green Mountain Glass, LLC and CulChrome, LLC
`
`Ex. 1071-002
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1725 Document: 38 Page: 3 Filed: 11/07/2018
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
` Form 9
` Rev. 10/17
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`Green Mountain Glass, LLC, Culchrome, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
` v.
`
`18-1725, -1784
`Case No.
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc. dba Verallia North America
`
`Counsel for the:
`(cid:133) (petitioner) (cid:133) (appellant) (cid:133) (respondent) (cid:133) (appellee) (cid:133) (amicus) (cid:133) (name of party)
`
`Green Mountain Glass, LLC and CulChrome, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`certifies the following (use “None” if applicable; use extra sheets if necessary):
`
`1. Full Name of Party
`Represented by me
`
`
`Green Mountain Glass, LLC
`CulChrome, LLC
`
`2. Name of Real Party in interest
`(Please only include any real party
`in interest NOT identified in
`Question 3) represented by me is:
`None
`None
`
`3. Parent corporations and
`publicly held companies
`that own 10% or more of
`stock in the party
`
`G R Technology, Inc. (privately held; no publicly held companies)
`
`GRT Holdings, Inc. (privately held; no publicly held companies)
`
`4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the party or amicus now
`represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this court (and who have not
`or will not enter an appearance in this case) are:
`Please see attached.
`
`Ex. 1071-003
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1725 Document: 38 Page: 4 Filed: 11/07/2018
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Form 9
` Rev. 10/17
`
`
`5. The title and number of any case known to counsel to be pending in this or any other court or agency
`that will directly affect or be directly affected by this court’s decision in the pending appeal. See Fed. Cir.
`R. 47. 4(a)(5) and 47.5(b). (The parties should attach continuation pages as necessary).
`
`None.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10/12/2018
`
`
`
`
` Date
`
`
`
`
`Please Note: All questions must be answered
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`All counsel by ECF
`cc:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jeffrey A. Lamken
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Signature of counsel
`Jeffrey A. Lamken
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Printed name of counsel
`
`
`
`
`
`Reset Fields
`
`Ex. 1071-004
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1725 Document: 38 Page: 5 Filed: 11/07/2018
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`Plaintiffs - Cross-Appellants Green Mountain Glass, LLC and CulChrome,
`
`LLC state that the following partners or associates have appeared on their behalf
`
`before the trial court or are expected to appear in this court:
`
`From Susman Godfrey, LLP: Justin A. Nelson, Matthew R. Berry, John E.
`
`Schiltz, Steven M. Shepard, Zachary Savage, and Max Tribble
`
`From Farnan LLP: Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan
`
`From Bramson & Pressman: Robert S. Bramson
`
`From MoloLamken LLP: Jeffrey A. Lamken, Justin B. Weiner, and
`
`Benjamin T. Sirolly
`
`
`
`Ex. 1071-005
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1725 Document: 38 Page: 6 Filed: 11/07/2018
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES............................................................................... 1
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 3
`I. Technological Background ................................................................................ 3
`A. The Limited Use of Cullet Before the ’737 Patent ..................................... 3
`B. Mosch Overcomes the Barriers To Using Mixed-Color Cullet and
`Obtains a Patent .......................................................................................... 5
`C. Ardagh Implements the Claimed Process Without a License .................... 8
`II. Proceedings Below ........................................................................................... 11
`A. Claim Construction ................................................................................... 12
`B. Destruction of Evidence and False Testimony ......................................... 13
`C. The Trial ................................................................................................... 14
`1.
`Infringement ...................................................................................... 14
`2.
`Invalidity ........................................................................................... 16
`3. Damages ............................................................................................ 19
`D. The Jury Finds the Patent Valid and Willfully Infringed, Awarding
`an Effective $12-Per-Ton Royalty ........................................................... 20
`E. Post-Trial Motions .................................................................................... 20
`1. Enhanced Damages ........................................................................... 20
`2.
`JMOL ................................................................................................ 21
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 21
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 23
`
`Ex. 1071-006
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1725 Document: 38 Page: 7 Filed: 11/07/2018
`
`I. The District Court Correctly Construed “Unsorted Mixed
`Color Cullet” .................................................................................................... 23
`A. The Court’s Construction Is Compelled by the Claims and
`Specification—and Ardagh’s Concession ................................................ 25
`B. Ardagh’s Construction Defies the Patent, Its Embodiments, and
`Prosecution History Alike ........................................................................ 31
`II. The Jury’s Infringement Verdict Should Be Affirmed .................................... 37
`A. The ’737 Patent Recites Selectively Decolorizing a Color of the
`Cullet, Not Selectively Decolorizing Cullet ............................................. 37
`B. The Evidence of Infringement Was Overwhelming ................................ 40
`III. The Jury Was Not Compelled To Find That Ardagh Proved Invalidity
`by Clear-and-Convincing Evidence ................................................................. 46
`A. The Jury Could Properly Find Ardagh Failed To Clearly and
`Convincingly Prove Anticipation Through Prior Public Use .................. 46
`1. Ardagh’s Contention That It Practiced the Invention Before
`the Priority Date ................................................................................ 47
`2. Ardagh’s Claimed Public Use .......................................................... 52
`B. The Jury’s Non-Obviousness Finding Should Be Affirmed .................... 54
`IV. The Jury’s Damages Award Is Supported by Substantial Evidence ................ 59
`A. Ardagh’s Apportionment Argument Does Not Deprive the Royalty
`Base of Evidentiary Support ..................................................................... 59
`B. The Royalty Rate Has Robust Evidentiary Support ................................. 62
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 65
`CROSS-APPEAL ..................................................................................................... 66
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ........................................................................ 66
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 66
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Ex. 1071-007
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1725 Document: 38 Page: 8 Filed: 11/07/2018
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE ............................................................................... 67
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 67
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 68
`I. The District Court’s Decision Departs from Precedent ................................... 68
`A. The Jury and District Court Both Found Ardagh’s Conduct
`“Especially Worthy of Punishment” ........................................................ 68
`B. The District Court Failed To Exercise Discretion Under Read ............... 70
`II. The District Court’s Read Analysis Misconstrues the Factors and
`Commits Clear Error ........................................................................................ 72
`A. The District Court Misconstrued the Relevance of—and Failed
`Even To Address Most—Litigation Misconduct ..................................... 72
`B. Duration of Misconduct and Remedial Measures .................................... 75
`C. The District Court Inverted Motivation To Harm .................................... 76
`D. “Closeness” Favors Enhancement ............................................................ 76
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 77
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Ex. 1071-008
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1725 Document: 38 Page: 9 Filed: 11/07/2018
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp.,
`350 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 33
`Alexsam, Inc. v. IDT Corp.,
`715 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 58
`Apotex USA, Inc. v. Merck & Co.,
`254 F.3d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 55
`
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`839 F.3d 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc) ...................................................passim
`Application of Garnero,
`412 F.2d 276 (C.C.P.A. 1969). ........................................................................... 33
`Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA Inc.,
`852 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 38
`Atlas IP, LLC v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`809 F.3d 599 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 33
`Bid for Position, LLC v. AOL LLC,
`601 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 26
`Carella v. Starlight Archery & Pro Line Co.,
`804 F.2d 135 (Fed. Cir. 1986) ...................................................................... 49, 52
`In re Caveney,
`761 F.2d 671 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ............................................................................ 54
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 37
`Dyer v. MacDougall,
`201 F.2d 265 (2d Cir. 1952) ......................................................................... 51, 52
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 59
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Ex. 1071-009
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1725 Document: 38 Page: 10 Filed: 11/07/2018
`
`Gov’t of Virgin Islands v. Archibald,
`987 F.2d 180 (3d. Cir. 1993) .............................................................................. 40
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) .................................................................................passim
`Hanson v. Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc.,
`718 F.2d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......................................................................... 63
`Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 1744 (2014) ........................................................................................ 68
`Hill-Rom Co. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.,
`209 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 28
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 31
`i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp.,
`598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 54
`Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc.,
`292 F.3d 728 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 49
`Key Pharms. v. Hercon Labs. Corp.,
`161 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...................................................................... 26, 60
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 59
`MasterMine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`874 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 24
`Metabolite Labs., Inc. v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings,
`370 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 75
`Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc.,
`303 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 46
`Monsanto Co. v. McFarling,
`488 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 65
`
`
`
`v
`
`Ex. 1071-010
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1725 Document: 38 Page: 11 Filed: 11/07/2018
`
`In re Nintendo Co.,
`544 F. App’x 934 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................... 68, 74
`NLRB v. Walton Mfg. Co.,
`369 U.S. 404 (1962) ............................................................................................ 51
`Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc.,
`141 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 47
`NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 56
`OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc.,
`122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 55
`Pac. Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Preview Furniture Corp.,
`800 F.2d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 1986) .......................................................................... 76
`Paragon Sols., LLC v. Timex Corp.,
`566 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 34
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................... 26, 33
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`894 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................. 38, 39, 40
`Power Mosfet Techs., L.L.C. v. Siemens AG,
`378 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................... 26, 31
`Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp.,
`875 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 71
`Prism Techs. LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,
`849 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 63
`Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ..............................passim
`Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc.,
`126 F.3d 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .......................................................................... 57
`Semper v. Santos,
`845 F.2d 1233 (3d Cir. 1988) ............................................................................. 59
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Ex. 1071-011
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1725 Document: 38 Page: 12 Filed: 11/07/2018
`
`Seymour v. McCormick,
`57 U.S. (16 How.) 480 (1854) ............................................................................ 66
`SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB,
`820 F.3d 419 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 31
`SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.,
`727 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 25
`SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.,
`439 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 41
`Sprint Commc’ns L.P. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.,
`No. 11-2686, 2017 WL 978107 (D. Kan. Mar. 14, 2017) .................................. 76
`Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co. v. Emcure Pharms. Ltd.,
`887 F.3d 1153 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 32
`Top Tobacco, L.P. v. N. Atl. Operating Co.,
`509 F.3d 380 (7th Cir. 2007) .............................................................................. 71
`
`Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling
`USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................... 58
`Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc.,
`546 U.S. 394 (2006) ............................................................................................ 54
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 34
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ............................................................................ 39
`W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
`721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983) .......................................................................... 54
`Whitserve, LLC v. Comput. Packages, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 10 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 60
`Woodland Tr. v. Flowertree Nursery, Inc.,
`148 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 52
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Ex. 1071-012
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1725 Document: 38 Page: 13 Filed: 11/07/2018
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 57
`Zenith Elecs. Corp v. PDI Comm’n Sys., Inc.,
`522 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 48, 50
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`28 U.S.C. §1295(a)(1) .............................................................................................. 66
`28 U.S.C. §1331 ...................................................................................................... 66
`28 U.S.C. §1338(a) .................................................................................................. 66
`35 U.S.C. §102(b) .................................................................................................... 53
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1) ............................................................................................ 73
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) ........................................................................................... 23, 54
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) .......................................................................................... 23, 54
`Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) ............................................................................................ 41
`
`AGENCY MATERIALS
`Ardagh Glass Inc. v. CulChrome, LLC,
`IPR2015-00944, Paper 9 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 29, 2015) ........................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`Ex. 1071-013
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1725 Document: 38 Page: 14 Filed: 11/07/2018
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.5, Plaintiffs - Cross-Appellants Green
`
`Mountain Glass, LLC and CulChrome, LLC note that:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`there have been no other appeals in this case; and
`
`there are no other cases pending in this or any other court that will
`
`directly affect or be directly affected by this Court’s decision in Nos. 18-1725,
`
`-1784.
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`Ex. 1071-014
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1725 Document: 38 Page: 15 Filed: 11/07/2018
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`1. Whether the district court correctly construed the phrase “unsorted
`
`mixed color glass cullet.”
`
`2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury’s infringement
`
`determination with respect to the “selectively” limitation.
`
`3. Whether Ardagh’s invalidity case was both preserved and so
`
`overwhelming that no reasonable juror could have thought Ardagh failed to meet
`
`its clear-and-convincing burden of proof.
`
`4. Whether substantial evidence supports the damages verdict.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`For decades, glassmakers faced a serious obstacle to reusing glass. Glass
`
`“cullet”—recycled glass—typically includes multiple colors. But using more than
`
`a minimal amount of mixed-color cullet would yield “off-color” bottles. Color-
`
`sorting the cullet was ineffective: Colors could not be separated entirely, and a
`
`large quantity of mixed-color cullet remained—typically ending up in landfills.
`
`See Appx6372-6377.
`
`The invention at issue—U.S. Patent No. 5,718,737 (“the ’737 patent”)—
`
`resolved that problem. Its novel use of colorizers and decolorizers allows glass-
`
`makers to use mixed-color cullet to generate properly colored bottles, yielding
`
`enormous cost-savings. The evidence showed that Ardagh “deliberate[ly]
`
`Ex. 1071-015
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1725 Document: 38 Page: 16 Filed: 11/07/2018
`
`cop[ied]” the patent and then knowingly infringed for years without any “‘good
`
`faith belief’ that the ’737 patent was invalid” or “not infringed.” Appx31-32. The
`
`jury found Ardagh’s infringement “especially worthy of punishment”—“egregious
`
`. . . wanton, malicious, consciously wrongful, or done in bad faith.” Appx75.
`
`Ardagh challenges the construction of one claim term—“unsorted mixed
`
`color cullet.” The court, it argues, should have given “unsorted mixed color cullet”
`
`a different construction than “mixed color cullet.” But Ardagh told the district
`
`court they mean the same thing, and the court agreed. The court’s refusal to credit
`
`Ardagh’s 11th-hour about-face, just before trial, was not error. The specification
`
`and claims repeatedly use “unsorted mixed color cullet” and “mixed color cullet”
`
`interchangeably. Ardagh’s contrary view would turn the abstract and summary of
`
`invention into nonsense. And Ardagh’s construction—that “unsorted mixed-color
`
`cullet” means cullet that has never been subjected to any kind of sorting, even
`
`wholly unsuccessful sorting—is incorrect. Glass that remains a disordered jumble
`
`of mixed colors is “unsorted mixed color cullet.” Ardagh’s construction makes
`
`infringement depend on what happened to the cullet—its potentially unknowable
`
`history—as opposed to its current condition. And Ardagh’s construction directly
`
`contradicts the prosecution history Ardagh invokes.
`
`Ardagh otherwise asks this Court to reweigh the evidence and second guess
`
`jury determinations. This Court does not “reweigh the evidence or consider what
`
`
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1071-016
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1725 Document: 38 Page: 17 Filed: 11/07/2018
`
`the record might have supported, or investigate potential arguments that were not
`
`meaningfully raised.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034, 1062
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc). Ardagh’s non-infringement position reduces to a
`
`waived claim-construction argument that is chemically impossible and gram-
`
`matically incorrect. There was substantial proof that Ardagh practiced every
`
`limitation—including expert testimony, Ardagh employees’ concessions, and
`
`Ardagh’s own records.
`
`Ardagh’s remaining challenges, to validity and damages, are waived and
`
`without merit. Its prior-use argument rested on shaky foundations; overwhelming
`
`evidence disproved it; and the jury was not required to find Ardagh met its clear-
`
`and-convincing burden. Substantial evidence supported the damages award.
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`TECHNOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
`U.S. Patent No. 5,718,737 (“the ’737 patent”) revolutionized glass recycling,
`
`making it possible to recycle “mixed colored cullet glass, i.e., broken pieces of
`
`glass of mixed colors and types,” to make “useful glass products” with
`
`commercially acceptable colors. Appx139, 1:13-16.
`
`A. The Limited Use of Cullet Before the ’737 Patent
`For years, glassmakers used two different sets of materials to make bottles.
`
`They used raw materials like sand, soda ash, and limestone. And they melted
`
`existing glass—broken pieces called “cullet”—together with that raw material.
`3
`
`
`
`Ex. 1071-017
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1725 Document: 38 Page: 18 Filed: 11/07/2018
`
`Appx1708. Cullet has significant advantages. Appx1394. It is cheaper than raw
`
`materials; requires less energy to melt; is less taxing on furnaces; reduces
`
`environmental emissions; and “[m]ake[s] more glass with less raw materials.”
`
`Appx1394-1398.
`
`For decades, however, most cullet could not be used in large quantities.
`
`During the manufacturing process, some bottles break or are otherwise unusable.
`
`Those become “internal” or “glass producer waste” cullet, Appx140, 4:14-16,
`
`which is typically a single color, Appx1173-1175. Such single-color cullet could
`
`be used to make bottles of that same color. Appx1218-1219. But cullet from other
`
`sources (such as consumer recycling) typically contains glass of various colors—
`
`“mixed color cullet”—including “amber,” “green,” and “flint” (clear). Appx139,
`
`1:29-37. Using anything but a minimal amount of mixed-color cullet produces
`
`unacceptable “off colors” in the finished product. Appx1398-1399.
`
`Thus, in 1994 (just months before the ’737 patent’s priority date) a trade
`
`association observed: “Glass manufacturers require cullet that’s separated by
`
`color—clear, amber or green.” Appx6373. “[V]ery little . . . mixed color cullet
`
`[could] be used in the making of glass.” Appx1399. It was dumped in landfills or
`
`blended into asphalt. Id. Demand for mixed-color cullet was so low that recyclers
`
`considered “discontinu[ing] recycling glass cullet because of the poor economics.”
`
`Appx4481 (1995 letter from Ardagh Senior Vice President).
`
`
`
`4
`
`Ex. 1071-018
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1725 Document: 38 Page: 19 Filed: 11/07/2018
`
`Color-sorting techniques—e.g., by hand or optical methods—were “not
`
`wholly effective for the separation and color sorting of all the glass.” Appx139,
`
`1:55-58; see Appx1570; Appx1174. “Since sorting is not fully effective,”
`
`Appx139, 2:13, the resulting cullet would include off-color glass, Appx1570;
`
`Appx1650; Appx1174. Moreover, because sorting small pieces is difficult, “a by-
`
`product of . . . recycling, even when an attempt is made to sort the glass by color, is
`
`a quantity of mixed colored pieces.” Appx139, 1:64-67.
`
`The inclusion of any appreciable quantity of off-color glass could ruin the
`
`batch. Appx1175. Bottle makers could use only “amber cullet for amber glass,”
`
`etc. Appx1218. Diluting a small quantity of cullet with off-color pieces into a
`
`larger batch could prevent the resulting color from being perceptibly changed.
`
`Appx1174; Appx1570. But that “dilution is the solution” approach allowed
`
`glassmakers to use only some relatively well-color-sorted cullet, if it contained
`
`small quantities of off-color glass. Appx1174; Appx1570. The vast majority of
`
`mixed-color cullet remained unusable. Appx6737.
`
`B. Mosch Overcomes the Barriers To Using Mixed-Color Cullet and
`Obtains a Patent
`All of that changed in 1995, when an engineer named Duane Mosch
`
`invented a method of making glass from mixed-color cullet. The invention
`
`“us[ed], in a novel way, existing technology, decolorizers, colorizers . . . to make
`
`unsorted color glass any color you want.” Appx1370 (Mosch testimony); see
`5
`
`
`
`Ex. 1071-019
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1725 Document: 38 Page: 20 Filed: 11/07/2018
`
`Appx140, 3:29-40. Chemical decolorizers “pick[] a color” from the cullet “that
`
`you don’t want, say, green,” and remove it. Appx1176-1177. For example, to
`
`produce amber-colored glass from mixed-color cullet, green glass in the mixed-
`
`color cullet is decolorized by adding chemical or physical decolorizing agents.
`
`Appx141, 5:67-6:34. A remaining color can be enhanced with colorizers.
`
`Appx141, 6:35-48.
`
`When Mosch applied for a patent, Appx3010, the Examiner initially rejected
`
`the application. The Examiner pointed to the application’s statement that cullet
`
`can be used after it is “sort[ed] . . . by color,” Appx3011:11-12, mistakenly
`
`construing that as an admission that “mixed color cullet is used in the glassmaking
`
`art” already, Appx3040; Appx44. In response, Mosch explained that existing
`
`methods required “sort[ing] by color,” which “is imprecise” and leaves otherwise
`
`unusable “mixed color pieces as a by-product” anyway. Appx3142-3143. Mosch
`
`then distinguished between sorted single-color cullet and unsorted mixed-color
`
`cullet: “[W]hile sorted single color glass cullet has indeed been recycled into
`
`new glass products, the unsorted mixed color glass cullet has not . . . been
`
`recycled into new glass products of a particular color.” Appx3142 (emphasis
`
`added). Consistent with that explanation, the patent was amended to use “mixed
`
`color cullet” and “unsorted mixed color cullet” interchangeably—and as distinct
`
`from sorted, single-color cullet. Appx3126-3139.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1071-020
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1725 Document: 38 Page: 21 Filed: 11/07/2018
`
`The ’737 patent—titled “[m]ethod of recycling mixed colored cullet into
`
`amber, green, or flint glass”—issued on February 17, 1998, Appx138, with a
`
`March 3, 1995 priority date, Appx83. It explains that mixed-color cullet can be
`
`“reclaimed, post-consumer glass” or a mix of “glass producer waste cullet” (i.e., a
`
`mix of single-color cullet). Appx140, 4:12-15; see Appx142-143. Independent
`
`claim 18 is illustrative:
`
`18. A method of creating recycled glass products, comprising the
`steps of:
`obtaining unsorted mixed color glass cullet having glass of at
`least two different colors;
`adding an amount of the unsorted mixed color glass cullet to a
`raw virgin soda-lime glass batch mixture for glass of a particu-
`lar color;
`adding to said virgin batch mixture at least one of a decolor-
`izing agent which selectively decolorizes at least one of the
`colors of said unsorted mixed color glass cullet other than said
`particular color and a colorizing agent which enhances said
`particular color of said unsorted mixed color glass cullet;
`melting the virgin batch mixture with said mixed color glass
`cullet and any agent added in said adding step to a molten state;
`and
`creating a recycled glass product of said particular color from
`the selectively colorized/decolorized virgin batch mixture.
`Appx142-143, 8:61-12. The patent defines “mixed color glass cullet” as “broken
`
`pieces of glass of mixed colors and types.” Appx139, 1:14-15.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Ex. 1071-021
`
`

`

`Case: 18-1725 Document: 3