Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc. v. Or-Cal, Inc
Filing
118
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER. Signed by Judge Alsup on August 9, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
TESSENDERLO KERLEY, INC.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
OR-CAL, INC.,
Defendant.
/
15
16
17
No. C 11-04100 WHA
INTRODUCTION
In this patent infringement action involving horticulture technology, the parties seek
18
construction of three terms found in two asserted patents. For the reasons stated below, one term
19
will be construed and two terms will not be construed at this time.
20
STATEMENT
21
Plaintiff Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc. and defendant Or-Cal, Inc. are competing
22
manufacturers of sun protectants for crops. TKI asserts infringement of United States
23
Patents 6,110,867 and 6,464,995, both of which claim methods for utilizing finely divided
24
particulate materials to enhance horticulture.
25
The ’867 patent — filed in 1997, issued in August 2000, and reissued after reexamination
26
in 2006 — disclosed examples of using calcined kaolin, a particulate material, to increase carbon
27
dioxide assimilation in a few different plant species. Claim 1 is a representative claim (col. 9;
28
reexamination certificate col. 1):
1
A method for enhancing the photosynthesis of
horticultural crop by increasing carbon dioxide
assimilation of said horticultural crop which
comprises
2
3
applying to the surface of said horticultural
crop an effective amount of one or more
highly reflective particulate materials, said
particulate materials
4
5
6
being finely divided, and
7
wherein the particles as applied
allow for the exchange of gases on
the surface of said crop and
8
9
the finely divided particulate
materials have a median individual
particle size below about 3 microns.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
The limitation of “increasing carbon dioxide assimilation” was added during reexamination to
12
overcome a prior-art reference, Moreshet et al., “Effect of Increasing Foliage Reflectance on
13
Yield, Growth, and Physiological Behavior of a Dryland Cotton Crop,” 19 CROP SCIENCE 863
14
(1979).
15
The ’995 patent, a related patent arising out of the same parent application as the ’867
16
patent, also claimed the use of particulate materials to enhance horticultural effects via a similar
17
mechanism. Claim 23 is a representative claim (col. 12):
18
20
A method for enhancing the horticultural effect of
horticultural substrates selected from the group
consisting of fruits, vegetables, trees, flowers,
grasses, roots, and landscape and ornamental plants
which comprises
21
applying a slurry comprising water,
22
a surfactant, and
23
one or more particulate materials, selected
from the group consisting of calcium
carbonate, hydrous kaolin, calcined kaolin
and mixtures thereof,
19
24
25
26
to the surface of said substrate to form a
membrane comprised of one or more
particulate layers and the surfactant,
27
28
said layers comprising one or more
particulate materials,
2
1
said particulate materials being finely
divided, and
2
wherein said membrane allows for the
exchange of gases on the surface of said
substrate.
3
4
TKI alleges that Or-Cal infringed by manufacturing sun protectant products with calcium
5
carbonate particles.
6
ANALYSIS
7
Courts must determine the meaning of disputed claim terms from the perspective of a
8
person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time the patent was filed. Chamberlain Group,
9
Inc. v. Lear Corp., 516 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2008). While claim terms are generally given
10
claim construction analysis. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–15 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
their ordinary and customary meaning, the patent’s specification is always highly relevant to the
11
12
Finally, courts also should consider the patent’s prosecution history, which “can often inform the
13
meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and
14
whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope
15
narrower than it would otherwise be.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (internal quotations omitted).
16
The intrinsic record is the primary resource in properly construing claim terms. Although
17
courts have discretion to consider extrinsic evidence, including dictionaries, scientific treatises,
18
and testimony from experts and inventors, such evidence is “less significant than the intrinsic
19
record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Phillips, 415 F.3d
20
at 1317.
21
A claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning except in certain situations:
22
First, where the patentee has unequivocally disavowed a certain meaning to obtain his patent, the
23
doctrine of prosecution disclaimer attaches and narrows the ordinary meaning of the claim
24
congruent with the scope of the surrender. Omega Engineering, Inc, v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d
25
1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Second, a court may also constrict the ordinary meaning if the
26
patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim
27
term in either the specification or prosecution history. Third, a court may constrict the ordinary
28
meaning when the ordinary meaning of the term “chosen by the patentee so deprives the claim of
3
1
clarity” as to require resort to the other intrinsic evidence for a definite meaning. CCS Fitness,
2
Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
THE ’867 PATENT: “EFFECTIVE AMOUNT.”
3
1.
4
The term, “effective amount,” is found in independent claims 1 and 38 of the ’867 patent.
5
The parties dispute whether the term should be construed broadly to mean any desired amount
6
(Or-Cal’s position) or more narrowly to mean the amount sufficient to improve photosynthesis
7
by increasing carbon dioxide uptake (TKI’s position). Neither party has explained why their
8
proposed construction would be relevant to issues of invalidity or infringement, and this Court
9
fails to see why this dispute matters. Nonetheless, the Court will construe the disputed term, as
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
requested.
The ’867 patent specification, at two different points, defines “effective amount” as the
amount sufficient to enhance photosynthesis (col. 4):
The surface of said horticultural crop is treated with
an amount of one or more highly reflective
particulate materials that is effective in enhancing
photosynthesis of the horticultural crop.
15
*
*
*
16
17
18
19
The the [sic] particle treatment may be applied as
one or more layers of finely divided particulate
material. The amount of material applied is within
the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. The
amount will be sufficent [sic] to improve
photosynthesis of the crop to which these particles
are applied.
20
The prosecution history also supports defining “effective amount” narrowly to mean the amount
21
sufficient to enhance photosynthesis. During reexamination, the PTO examiner’s “Statement of
22
Reasons for Patentability” stated that “the only proper interpretation of ‘an effective amount’ is
23
an amount that is effective to enhance photosynthesis of horticultural crops by increasing carbon
24
dioxide assimilation of said crops” (Dkt. No. 108-6 at 7).
25
Or-Cal actually agrees that the “effective amount” is the amount that produces the
26
desired result of enhancing photosynthesis by increasing carbon dioxide assimilation (Or-Cal Br.
27
14–15). Or-Cal’s only argument in opposition of TKI’s proposed construction is that it would be
28
redundant because the limitation of “enhancing photosynthesis by increasing carbon dioxide
4
1
assimilation” is specified elsewhere in the claim. Or-Cal’s redundancy argument is not enough
2
to reject TKI’s proposed construction, which is admittedly accurate. A purpose of claim
3
construction is to remove ambiguity. Here, construing the term “effective amount” to mean Or-
4
Cal’s broader “desired result” would add ambiguity as to the patentee’s intended, narrower
5
meaning, which was “ the amount sufficient to enhance photosynthesis by increasing carbon
6
dioxide uptake.” Whether this is enabled by the disclosure is a matter for another day.
7
Accordingly, the term “effective amount” shall be construed to mean “an amount that is
8
sufficient to enhance photosynthesis of horticultural crops by increasing carbon dioxide
9
assimilation of said crops.” At the claim-construction hearing, neither party chose not to argue
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
against this construction, which was previously provided in a tentative order.
2.
THE ’867 PATENT: “PARTICLES AS APPLIED ALLOW FOR
THE EXCHANGE OF GASES ON THE SURFACE OF SAID CROP.”
12
This term, “particles as applied allow for the exchange of gases on the surface of said
13
crop,” is found in independent claims 1 and 38 of the ’867 patent. TKI proposes the following
14
construction: “there is gas exchange on a treated surface which includes stomata and the
15
particles do not materially affect gas exchange such that stomatal conductance is not materially
16
reduced.” Or-Cal proposes the following construction: “the particles are applied in a manner
17
that allows for transpiration without hindering passage of water vapor, oxygen and CO2.” These
18
disputes are arguably relevant to invalidity contentions. On the present record, however, the
19
term cannot be meaningfully construed. If construction of the term proves necessary, it will be
20
construed before the jury is charged at the end of the trial, and its construction will be based
21
upon a more fully developed record. In particular, the dispute over whether the claimed particles
22
must be applied to at least one surface with stomata cannot be meaningfully resolved on the
23
present record.
24
As an initial matter, it is undisputed that gas exchange in crops occurred on a surface
25
with stomatas (Or-Cal Br. 3; see also col. 7). The ’867 patent claims a method wherein the
26
particles are “appl[ied] to the surface of said horticultural crop” and “wherein the particles as
27
applied allow for the exchange of gases on the surface of said crop” (col. 9) (emphasis added).
28
The use of a definitive article, ‘the,’ twice in the same claim sentence suggests that the particles
5
1
are applied to the surface where gas exchange occurs (i.e., the surface with stomata). At oral
2
arguments, Or-Cal disputed this reading of the claim language, arguing that “apply to the
3
surface” and “exchange of gases on the surface” can refer to two different and distinct surfaces
4
(i.e., the particles were applied to the surface without stomata but allow gases exchange on the
5
surface with stomata). Or-Cal’s reading of the claim language is tortured. It is unlikely that a
6
skilled artisan would understand “the surface” to refer to one surface at the beginning of the
7
claim sentence and refer to an entirely distinct surface at the end of the claim sentence.
8
Nonetheless, this order does not need to resolve the disputed reading now because the entire
9
record does not allow for meaningful construction of the term, discussed below.
TKI argues that the reexamination history supports its construction. During
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
reexamination, the patentee differentiated his invention from the prior art Moreshet reference by
12
arguing that his method of applying particles “allow[ed] for the exchange of gases from the plant
13
surface” whereas the particle coating in Moreshet reduced water transpiration, reduced carbon
14
dioxide, and reduced stomatal conductance (Dkt. No. 108-5) (emphasis added). The patentee
15
presented experimental results showing that in Moreshet the 25% kaolin was applied to apple
16
leaves by applying the spray “over the top of the canopy from a standard, tractor-mounted boom
17
sprayer at a rate of approximately 400 liters/ha,” there was reduced gas exchange by the stomatas
18
(Dkt. Nos. 108-7, 78-1). There is nothing in the record, however, to prove that Moreshet’s
19
method of application (spray over the top of the canopy) would have put the kaolin on all
20
surfaces of the apple leaves, including the surface with stomata. Thus, on this record, there is not
21
enough to show that the patentee unequivocally disavowed application of the claimed particles to
22
only non-stomata surfaces to obtain his patent on reexamination.
23
TKI also argues that because Moreshet’s 25% kaolin treatment reduced gas exchange,
24
including carbon dioxide uptake, the kaolin must have been applied to a surface with stomata;
25
otherwise, the kaolin would not have interfered with gas exchange. There is, however,
26
insufficient expert testimony to support this factual assertion. A more developed record will help
27
clarify this scientific proposition.
28
6
1
Or-Cal argues that the claimed invention encompasses application to only non-stomata
2
surfaces because the specification states that the claimed particles do not have to be applied to
3
the under surface of a crop (col. 4)(emphasis added):
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
The surface of said horticultural crop is treated with
an amount of one or more highly reflective
particulate materials that is effective in enhancing
photosynthesis of the horticultural crop. The
treatment coverage of said crop is within the skill of
the ordinary artesian [sic]. Less than full crop
coverage is within the scope of this invention and
can be highly effective, for example, neither the
under surface of the crop (that which is not exposed
directly to the source of light) need be treated by
the method of this invention nor must the upper
surface of the crop be completely covered; although
full substrate coverage can provide additional
benefits such as effective disease control, smoother
fruit surface, reduced bark and fruit cracking, and
reduced russeting.
12
However, Or-Cal’s argument — that the above-quoted passage means that the claimed particles
13
need not be applied to a surface with stomata — is unpersuasive. True, the under surface of
14
some crops (such as apples and peaches) have more stomata than the upper surface. But
15
importantly, Or-Cal’s own expert admits that even apples and peaches can have some stomata on
16
the upper surface (Jubert Decl. ¶¶ 20–21). At the claim-construction hearing, Or-Cal’s counsel
17
argued that apples and peaches only have stomata on the under surface and no stomata on the
18
upper surface. Again, there is nothing in the record to support this factual argument. Moreover,
19
Or-Cal’s expert also admits that some plants, such as bean plants (which is arguably
20
encompassed by the patent), have similar amounts of stomata on both surfaces (Jubert Decl. ¶
21
20). Therefore, simply because the specification states that the claimed particles do not need to
22
be applied to the under surface, it does not necessarily follow that the particles do not need to be
23
applied to a surface with stomata, at least on the present record.
24
Accordingly, the term “particles as applied allow for the exchange of gases on the surface
25
of said crop,” cannot be meaningfully construed. If construction of the term proves necessary, it
26
will be construed before the jury is charged at the end of the trial, and its construction will be
27
based upon a more fully developed record.
28
7
1
3.
THE ’995 PATENT: “SAID MEMBRANE ALLOWS FOR THE
EXCHANGE OF GASES ON THE SURFACE OF SAID SUBSTRATE.”
2
In their claim-construction briefs, both parties agreed that construction of the ’995 patent
3
term, “said membrane allows for the exchange of gases on the surface of said substrate,” would
4
mimic the ’867 term, “particles as applied allow for the exchange of gases on the surface of said
5
crop” (Dkt. No. 106 at 23, Dkt. No. 110 at 6; see Dkt. No. 104 at 18). For that reason, neither
6
party devoted more than a page of their briefs to discussing the ’995 patent.
7
During the claim-construction hearing, however, Or-Cal reneged on its earlier agreement
8
because of the Court’s tentative construction of the’867 term was unfavorable to Or-Cal. At the
9
hearing, Or-Cal argued that the construction of the ’995 patent cannot mimic the ’867 patent
10
inconsistent with Or-Cal’s brief, which stated: “The parties agree that the ‘allow[s] for the
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
unless the Court finds that Or-Cal’s proposed construction controls for both. Again, this was
11
12
exchange of gases on the surface’ phrases of the two patents should be given the same
13
construction” (Dkt. Nos. 110 at 6). Nonetheless, in an abundance of caution, this order will not
14
construe the term in the ’995 patent. The present record and briefs are wholly inadequate to
15
allow for meaningful construction. If construction of the term proves necessary, it will be
16
construed before the jury is charged at the end of the trial, and its construction will be based
17
upon a more fully developed record
18
CONCLUSION
19
For the reasons provided herein, the construction set forth above will apply in this
20
dispute. The Court will reserve the authority, on its own motion, to modify this construction if
21
further evidence warrants such a modification. Counsel, however, may not ask for modification.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
Dated: August 9, 2012.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26
27
28
8
]]>
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?
