Link Treasure Limited et al v. Baby Trend Inc
Filing
85
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER by Judge Virginia A. Phillips. (See document for specifics) (mrgo)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LINK TREASURE LIMITED, a ) company organized and ) 12 existing under the laws ) of the British Virgin ) 13 Islands, and DISCOVERY ) INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD., ) 14 a company organized and ) existing under the laws ) 15 of the British Virgin ) Islands, ) 16 ) Plaintiff, ) 17 ) v. ) 18 ) BABY TREND, INC., a ) 19 corporation organized ) and existing under the ) 20 laws of the state of ) California, ) 21 ) Defendants. ) 22 ________________________ ) 23 Case No. EDCV 07-828-VAP (OPx) CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
The Court conducted a hearing on October 23, 2008 on
24 the parties' proposed constructions of certain terms in 25 claim one of U.S. Patent No. 5,876,057 ("The '057 26 Patent"), pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments, 27 Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) aff'd, 517 28 U.S. 370 (1996). Having considered the parties' written
1 submissions, as well as the arguments advanced by counsel 2 at the hearing, the Court now issues its claim 3 construction order. 4 5 6 I. INTRODUCTION On August 18, 2006, Plaintiff Link Treasure Limited
7 ("Link") filed a Complaint in the United States District 8 Court, Northern District of Georgia, against Defendant 9 Baby Trend, Inc., accusing Defendant of infringing Patent 10 '057, entitled "Folding Device for a Stroller," and 11 Patent No. D430,826, entitled "Frame of Three-Wheeled 12 Stroller." 13 14 On June 18, 2007, the District Court in Georgia 15 granted Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, and 16 transferred the case to this Court. 17 18 19 II. LEGAL STANDARD Claim construction is a legal question for the Court. To
20 Markman, 517 U.S. at 390; Cyborg Corp. v. FAS Techs., 21 Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). 22 construe a claim, a court may consider the claim, the 23 specifications, and the prosecution file history. 24 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 25 2005) (en banc). 27 28
2
"Any articulated definition of a claim
26 term ultimately must relate to the infringement question
1 it was intended to answer." 3 4
E-Pass Tech, Inc. v. 3Com
2 Corp., 473 F.3d 1213, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Court begins its construction of a patent claim
5 with the words of the claim itself, which "are generally 6 given their ordinary and customary meaning . . . , the 7 meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary 8 skill in the art in question . . . as of the [patent's] 9 effective filing date." 10 11 The Court looks to the patent specifications when 12 construing "the meaning of a claim term as it is used by 13 the inventor in the context of the entirety of his 14 invention. . . ." Comark Comm. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d Furthermore, in Phillips, 15 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13.
16 the Federal Circuit emphasized the specification's 17 critical importance: it "is always highly relevant to the 18 claim construction analysis. 20 term." Usually it is dispositive; 19 it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics 21 Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. 22 Cir. 1996)). 23 24 The prosecution history, like the specifications, Phillips, 415 F.3d at 25 provides evidence of how the Patent Officer and the 26 inventor understood the patent. 28
3
27 1317 (citing Lemelson v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 968 F.2d 1202,
1 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
The prosecution history
2 "represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and 3 the applicant, rather than the final product of that 4 negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the 5 specification and thus is less useful for claim 6 construction purposes." Id. (citing Inverness Med. 7 Switz. GmbH v. Warner Lambert Co., 309 F.3d 1373, 1380-82 8 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince 9 Mfg., Inc., 73 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). The 10 prosecution history, however, is important because it can 11 demonstrate "whether the inventor limited the invention 12 in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope 13 narrower than it would otherwise be." Id. (citing 14 Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582-83; Chimie v. PPG Indus., 15 Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). 16 17 In Phillips, the Federal Circuit also addressed the 18 use of dictionaries in claim construction, reiterating 19 that "[i]n some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim 20 language as understood by a person of skill in the art 21 may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim 22 construction in such cases involves little more than the 23 application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly 24 understood words. . . . In such circumstances, general Phillips, 415 F.3d 25 purpose dictionaries may be helpful." 27 Cir. 2001)). 28
4
26 at 1314 (citing Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Overall, extrinsic evidence is "less
1 significant than the intrinsic record in determining the 2 legally operative meaning of the claim language." 3 1317 (citation omitted.) 5 6 7 9 10 A. 11 Claim 1: "Strip" Plaintiff Link proposes the claim term "strip" be (Joint Claim 8 '057 Patent. III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION All of the disputed terms appear in Claim One of the 4 the Court turns to the terms at issue here. Id. at With these principles in mind,
12 construed as follows: "a relatively thin and inextensible 13 piece of material of uniform width." 14 Constructions at 2.) 16 narrow, and flat."1 17 18 The parties dispute only whether "flat" should be Plaintiff Link opposes its 19 included in the construction. Defendant Baby Trend proposes the (Id.)
15 term be construed as "a piece of material that is long,
20 inclusion, contending that given the intrinsic evidence, 21 the "strip" described in the patent is a piece of 22 material that is curved and not "flat." 23 13-14.) 24 /// 25 26 Defendant Baby Trend cites to dictionary definitions as its extrinsic support; the Court need not 27 resort to such definitions because the ordinary meaning 28 is apparent readily. Accord Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.
5
1
(See Link Br. at
1
In construing a claim, the Court must give the
2 disputed claim term meaning it would have to a person of 3 ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the 4 invention, "who views the claim term in light of the 5 entire intrinsic record." Nystrom v. Trex Co, 424 F.3d Also, the Court must 6 1136, 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
7 determine the ordinary meaning in the context of the 8 written description and the prosecution history, not in a 9 vacuum. 11 12 Viewing the claim in light of the intrinsic record 13 here, the Court finds that the "strip," identified as 50 14 in the '057 patent specifications, figures 3, 4, 5, and 15 7, is curved along the length of the stroller arm. 16 e.g., '057 Patent, Figs. 3-5, 7. See, The strip's function is See Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 10 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
17 movement that triggers the sliding plate (44) which in 18 turn moves and disengages from the cover (112); the strip 19 itself is flat but assumes the curvature of the arm of 20 the stroller. If the strip were a rigid curved form, it 21 would be locked into place, unable to move along the 22 upper support (20) of the stroller. 23 24 The intrinsic record also reveals that the strip is Otherwise, 25 flexible, as it assumes the curve of the stroller arm's 26 upper support, but cannot expand or contract. 28
6
27 the strip could not serve its function in engaging the
1 collapsing process of the stroller by triggering the 2 sliding plate to disengage from the cover, as described 3 above. 4 5 The language of the patent and its attached diagrams (See Patent No. '057 fig. 6 and specifications support a combination of the proposed 7 constructions of the parties. 8 5; col. 2, ll. 37-41, 55-65.) 9 10 Accordingly, the Court construes Claim One as 11 follows: "The strip is a piece of inextensible material 12 that is long, narrow, and flat." 13 14 B. 15 Claim 2: Sliding Plate Although the parties originally sought a claim
16 construction on the term "sliding plate," they have since 17 withdrawn that request. 18 19 C. 20 Claim 3: Recovery Member The third claim reads as follows: "recovery member
21 having a first end securely mounted to a distal end of 22 the upper support and a second end of which is securely 23 connected with said sliding plate." 24 Constructions at 9.) 26 27 28 (Joint Claim Plaintiff Link proposes that the
25 Court construe the claim term as follows: "one or more components that exert a force that returns one or more other components to their original position(s) or location(s) and that is positioned between the sliding plate and one end of
7
1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12
the upper support such that the recovery member's first end is attached at or near the end of the upper support that is farthest away from the handle in a manner such that the recovery member does not come loose during normal operation of the mechanism and that is attached at another end to the sliding plate in a manner such that the recovery member does not come loose during normal operation of the mechanism." (Id. at 9-10.) "the recovery member is positioned between the sliding plate and the distal end of the upper support by the recovery member's first end being securely mounted at or near the edge of the upper support that is farthest away from the handle and its second end being securely connected to the sliding plate at a position between the first end of the recovery member and the handle." (Id.) The crux of the discord between the parties' proposed
6 Defendant Baby Trend's proposed construction is:
13 constructions is whether or not the recovery member is 14 attached at the "end" or to the "edge" of the upper 15 support that is farthest away from the handle. 16 17 The Court notes that neither party's construction The patent's "Detailed Description of Preferred 18 gives much better a description than does the patent 19 itself. 20 Embodiment" states "[a] first end of the recovery member 21 43 is securely mounted on a distal end of the upper 22 support 20 and a second end thereof is securely connected 23 to the sliding plate 44, thereby allowing a reciprocating 24 movement of the sliding plate 44 due to the provisions of 25 the recovery member 43." 26 46. 27 /// 28
8
Patent No. '057, col. 2 ll. 41-
1
Upon review of the entire intrinsic record, the Court
2 finds it unnecessary to include in the construction, as 3 Plaintiff Link proposes, any description why the recovery 4 member is attached securely to the upper support. 5 Joint Claim Constructions at 9 (recovery member is 6 attached "in a manner such that the recovery member does 7 not come loose during normal operation of the 8 mechanism").) Such additional language is unnecessary 9 because the recovery member can be construed sufficiently 10 without reference to it; also, the additional language is 11 unsupported by the intrinsic record. See Netword, LLC v. 12 Centraal Corp., 242 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 13 2001)(claims cannot "enlarge what is patented beyond what 14 the inventor has described in the invention"). 15 16 After review of the specifications and preferred 17 embodiment, the Court agrees with Plaintiff Link that 18 using the word "edge" is not supported by the intrinsic 19 record. The recovery member is affixed to the upper (See, e.g., Patent 20 support at a point near the end of the upper support, but 21 not at the edge of the upper support. 22 No. '057, fig. 7.) 23 24 The Court construes Claim Three as follows: "The 25 recovery member is the component positioned between the 26 sliding plate and the distal end of the upper support, 27 with its first end attached securely at or near the end 28
9
(See
1 of the upper support that is farthest away from the 2 handle and its second end being connected securely to the 3 sliding plate." 4 5 D. 6 Claim 4: Having a Recess Defined [in the Cover] Plaintiff Link proposes the Court adopt the following
7 construction of the claim term "having a recess defined 8 [in the cover]": "having an indentation or depression in 9 the structure that overlays at least a portion of the top 10 of the front support of the stroller." 11 Constructions at 14.) 13 hole or hollow." 14 15 Upon review of the intrinsic record, the claim term, (See 16 referred to as 113, describes a semi-circular recess or 17 notch carved out of the upper section of the cover. 18 Patent. No. '057, fig. 3-5, 7.) The notch itself is 19 received and latches into the sliding plate; when the 20 notch is released by the trigger pulling the sliding 21 plate up the stroller arm, the collapsing mechanism of 22 the stroller is engaged. 23 24 Based on the intrinsic record, the Court adopts Link's 25 Plaintiff Link's proposed construction, in part. 26 construction describes more than "having a recess 27 defined" by explaining how the recess relates to the rest 28
10
(Joint Claim
Defendant Baby Trend proposes the
12 Court construe it to mean "a surface of the cover has a (Id.)
(See id.)
1 of the stroller construction. 3 Netword, LLC, 242 F.3d at 1352. 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
11
The Court limits the See
2 construction to the scope of the claim term itself.
The Court construes Claim Four as follows: "having an
6 indentation or depression."
Dated: November 13, 2008
VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS United States District Judge
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
