Wash World Inc. v. Belanger Inc
Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit addressed important issues about patent claim construction and damages in the case of Wash World Inc. v. Belanger Inc., involving a patented car wash system (U.S. Patent No. 8,602,041). Belanger, the patent owner, had won a jury verdict against Wash World for infringing its patent with the “Razor EDGE” car wash system, resulting in a damages award of nearly $10 million. However, Wash World challenged both the interpretation of certain patent terms and the amount of damages awarded.
The court ruled that Wash World had forfeited its right to argue for narrower interpretations of two key claim terms—”outer cushioning sleeve” and “predefined wash area”—because it had not clearly raised those arguments in the district court. The Federal Circuit emphasized that parties must present their claim construction disputes early and clearly, and cannot change their positions on appeal. However, the court did address the meaning of “dependingly mounted,” agreeing with the district court that the patent did not require a direct connection between the spray arm and the carriage, allowing for indirect mounting as well.
The most significant part of the decision involved the damages awarded for “convoyed sales”—that is, lost profits not just on the patented car wash system, but also on unpatented components like dryers sold as part of a package. The Federal Circuit found that Belanger was not entitled to lost profits for these unpatented components because there was no evidence they formed a “functional unit” with the patented invention. The court ordered the damages to be reduced by about $2.6 million, the amount attributed to convoyed sales, resulting in a revised award of approximately $7.5 million.
This case serves as a reminder that patent holders seeking damages for convoyed sales must show a true functional relationship between patented and unpatented components, not just that they are sold together for convenience. It also highlights the importance of raising all claim construction arguments early in the litigation process.