Category Archives: Claim Construction

Footnote in Brief Doesn’t Count; Anyway Construction for Infringement Construction can’t be From Validity

Posted on by

In Commscope Technologies LLC v. Dali Wireless Inc., [2020-1817, 2020-1818] (August 24, 2021) the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of JMOL of no infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,031,521, and affirmed denial of JMOL of invalidity.

U.S. Patent No. 9,031,521, relates to wireless communications with portable equipment and handsets, such as mobile phones.  The claim limitation at the center of the parties’ infringement dispute is the first step in the claimed operating phase: “switching a controller off to disconnect signal representative of the output of the power amplifier.”  On appeal CommScope argued that Dali failed to present evidence proving that the FlexWave meets the district court’s construction of the claim term “switching a controller off.” The Federal Circuit agreed.

Dali argued that the claim term “switching a controller off” meant “switching a controller to an off status,” and no further definition was needed.  CommScope, on the other hand, proposed that the claim term meant “[s]witching a controller to a nonoperating state.”  The district court agreed with CommScope, drawing a distinction between: (1) when the controller is turned off and (2) the effect on the system of turning the controller off.

Dali argued (in a footnote) that CommScope’s position was nonsense.  The Federal Circuit said that “an argument that is only made in a footnote of an appellant’s brief is forfeited.”  Further, even if the argument were in the body of the brief, it was insufficiently developed. Finally, and most importantly, the s irreconcilable with Dali’s statements in other portions of its brief.  Thus the Federal Circuit turned to the issue of infringement.  The Federal Circuit pointed out that Dali’s expert’s testimony never states that either the switch or the controller is rendered “nonoperating,” thus does not provide substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding that the accused product meets the district court’s claim construction.  Not only was there a lack of evidence to show that the accused product met the proper construction of the claims, there is unrebutted evidence showing the opposite.  CommScope points to the testimony of its expert, who testified that both the switch and the controller are continuously operating.

The Federal Circuit said that the burden is on a patent owner to show that “the properly construed claim reads on the accused device exactly.”  CommScope’s reliance on the claim terms as construed by the district court is not “hairsplitting,” as Dali argues, but instead properly shows that Dali failed to meet its burden at the district court and that no reasonable jury could have found otherwise.  Dali presented only a literal infringement case, and not a doctrine-of-equivalents alternative. Thus, Dali’s argument that the accused switch/controller is effectively “nonoperating” because it is not passing a feedback signal of the power amplifier of interest is irrelevant because Dali failed to produce evidence below to show that the accused controller is literally nonoperating, as the district court determined was required by the claim.

Finally, Dali’s arguments on infringement cannot stand in view of its arguments of no anticipation.  For these reasons, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of CommScope’s motion for JMOL of no infringement of the ’521 patent and affirmed the judgment of the district court in all other respects.

Silence does not Support Claim Construction Excluding Prior Art

Posted on by

In Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc., v. Magseis FF LLC, [2020-1237] (August 11, 2021), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB’s determination that U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE45,268 was not anticipated or obvious, becase if a error in the PTAB’s claim construction.

The ’268 patent is directed to seismometers for use in seismic exploration, and all of its claims required a “geophone internally fixed within” either a “housing” or an “internal compartment” of a seismometer. The Board concluded that the prior art did not disclose this geophone requirement, and thus the claims had not been shown to be anticipated or obvious.

The Board construed “geophone internally fixed within [the] housing” to require a non-gimbaled geophone. It found, based entirely on extrinsic evidence, that “fixed” had
a special meaning in the relevant art at the time of the invention: “not gimbaled.” The Federal Circuit noted that

If the meaning of a claim term is clear from the intrinsic evidence, there is no reason
to resort to extrinsic evidence. The Federal Circuit concluded, based upon the intrinsic evidence, that the word fixed here carries its ordinary meaning, i.e., attached or fastened:

The adverb internally and the preposition within straddling the word fixed indicate that it specifies the geophone’s relationship with the housing, not the type of geophone. The plain
language therefore supports interpreting “internally fixed within” to mean mounted or fastened inside.

The Federal Circuit found the specification was consistent with its construction:

The specification describes mounting the geophone inside the housing as a key feature of the invention. By contrast, it says nothing about the geophone being gimbaled or non-gimbaled. Given that context, a skilled artisan would understand the claim term “geophone internally
fixed within [the] housing” merely specifies where the geophone is mounted and has nothing to do with gimbaling.

The Federal Circuit noted that “[t]he specification never mentions gimbaled or non-gimbaled
geophones, nor does it provide a reason to exclude gimbals.” The Court concluded “[t]hat silence does not support reading the claims to exclude gimbaled geophones.” The patentee conceded that gimballed geophones were known, and that the specification mentioned gimballed claims. The Federal Circuit reasoned that “[i]If the patentee had wanted to distinguish between gimbaled and non-gimbaled geophones, it knew how to do so and could have indicated as much in the specification. But it did not.”

The Federal Circuit said that the intrinsic evidence as a whole supports an interpretation of “geophone internally fixed within [the] housing” that does not exclude gimbaled geophones. The Court concluded that the Board erred in reaching a narrower interpretation, and vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Claims are No Nose of Wax; Infringement Determined Under Same Construction as Validity

Posted on by

In Data Engine Technologies LLC v.  Google LLC, [2021-1050] (August 26, 2021) the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,590,259; 5,784,545; and 6,282,551 directed to systems and methods for displaying and navigating three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets.

The preamble of the claims at issue recited: “In an electronic spreadsheet system for storing and manipulating information, a computer-implemented method of representing a three-dimensional spreadsheet on a screen display.”  In defeating a prior 101 challenge, DET argued that the invention solved a problem unique to three-dimensional spreadsheets.  On remand, Google asked the district court for a determination whether the claim preamble was a limitation, and if so, what it meant.  The district court held that the preamble was limiting, and required a mathematical relation among cells on different spreadsheets, whereupon Google moved for summary judgment of non-infringement since its accused product was not a three-dimensional spreadsheet.  The district court granted summary judgment, and DET appealed.

On appeal there was no dispute that Google did not infringe under the district court’s construction of “three-dimensional spreadsheet,” the issue being whether the preamble is in fact limiting and, if so, whether the district court’s construction of three-dimensional spreadsheet was correct.  The Federal Circuit noted that DET’s assertion that the preamble term “three-dimensional spreadsheet” is not limiting effectively seeks to obtain a different claim construction for purposes of infringement than the Federal Circuit applied (at DET’s insistence) in holding the claims eligible under § 101.  Noting that a  claim is not a nose of wax, the Federal Circuit said a patentee relies on language found in the preamble to successfully argue that its claims are directed to eligible subject matter, it cannot later assert that the preamble term has no patentable weight for purposes of showing infringement. Thus the Federal Circuit concluded that the preamble term “three-dimensional spreadsheet” was limiting.

 Turning to the district court’s construction of “three-dimensional spreadsheet,” the parties agreed that a three-dimensional spreadsheet requires cells “arranged in a 3-D grid,” but not on whether it also requires “a mathematical relation among cells on different spreadsheet pages,” as required by the district court’s construction.  The Federal Circuit found that neither the claims themselves nor the prosecution history answered the question of whether a three-dimensional spreadsheet requires a mathematical relation among cells on different spreadsheets.  However, based upon the prosecution history, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the preamble term “three-dimensional spreadsheet” requires a mathematical relation.  During prosecution of the application that led to the ’259 patent, the applicants provided an explicit definition of a “true” three-dimensional spreadsheet and distinguished prior art under this definition.  Giving effect to this express definition in the prosecution history, the Federal Circuit determined that the claims require a three-dimensional spreadsheet that “defines a mathematical relation among cells on the different pages.”  The Federal Circuit rejected DET’s arguments that the statements did not rise to the level or clear and unmistakable disclaimer,  noting that consistent with the public notice function of the prosecution history, the public is entitled to rely on these statements as defining the scope of the claims.

Definitions can be very helpful to the patent applicants in giving concrete meaning to the claims, but they can also be very limiting. It’s not that applicants should not use definitions, but that they should be used cautiously. A definition that seems harmless in one context, can be disasterous in another context.

PTAB Departure from Agreed Claim Construction Required Notice and Opportunity to be Heard

Posted on by

In Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp., [2020-1589, 2020-1590, 2020-1591, 2020-1592, 2020-1593,
2020-1594] (July 27, 2021), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded six inter partes review final written decisions determining that claims 1–15, 17–25, and 27–33 of U.S. Patent
No. 9,608,675 would have been obvious.

The ’675 patent relates to techniques for generating a power tracking supply voltage for a circuit that processes multiple radio frequency signals simultaneously, using one power amplifier and one power tracking supply generator. During the IPR’s the parties never disputed that the signals were required to increase user bandwidth, and in the International Trade Commission, the Commission’s construction of the term also included the increased
bandwidth requirement.

The Board issued six final written decisions concluding that all challenged claims were unpatentable. In reaching its conclusion, the Board construed the term “a plurality of carrier aggregated transmit signals” in each asserted claim to mean “signals for transmission on multiple carriers,” omitting any requirement that the signals increase or extend bandwidth.

Qualcomm argued that it was not afforded notice of, or an adequate opportunity to respond to, the Board’s construction of “a plurality of carrier aggregated transmit signals,” and the Federal Circuit agreed. The Federal Circuit began by noting that “[a] patent owner in [an IPR] is undoubtedly entitled to notice of and a fair opportunity to meet the grounds of rejection,”
based on due process and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) guarantees.

The Board may adopt a claim construction of a disputed term that neither party proposes
without running afoul of the APA. Parties are well aware that the Board may stray from disputed, proposed constructions, however, but in the instant case the issue of whether increased bandwidth was a required part of the claim construction was not in dispute. The Federal Circuit noted that the patent owner owner agreed with the increased bandwidth requirement proposed by the petitioner. While the Board did not change theories midstream or depart from a construction it previously adopted, it is still difficult to imagine either party anticipating that this agreed-upon matter of claim construction was a moving target. The Federal Circuit said that unlike with disputed terms, it is unreasonable to expect parties to brief or argue agreed-upon matters of claim construction. Thus the Federal Circuit found that in the
the circumstances of this case, the Board needed to provide notice of, and an adequate opportunity to respond to, its construction. The Federal Circuit further found that Qualcomm did not receive notice or an opportunity to be heard regarding the Board’s construction that departed from the agreed-upon increased bandwidth requirement, and thus, the Board violated Qualcomm’s procedural rights under the APA.

Intrinsic Evidence > Dictionary Definitions, Analogies, and Purported Plain Meaning

Posted on by

 In Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple Inc., [2020-1403, 2020-1404] (May 12, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB determination that claims 1–17 and 23–25 of  U.S. Patent No. 8,539,552 were invalid for obviousness.

The ’552 patent is directed to a system and method to police the use of various optional features, such as caller-ID, call waiting, multi-line service, and different levels of service quality known as the “codec specification.”

On appeal, Uniloc contended that the Board’s construction of “intercepting” in the independent claims was erroneous and that the Board incorrectly held claims 1–17 and 23–25 invalid as a result. In its cross-appeal, Apple argued that the Board erroneously rejected its challenge to claims 18–22.

As to Unilock’s appeal the Federal Circuit noted that because the receiving client device is the ultimate “intended recipient” does not mean that the sending client device cannot intentionally direct the message to the intercepting entity.  The Federal Circuit held that the claims encompass the situation in which a sending client device intentionally sends a signaling message to the intermediate network entity that per-forms the interception. Contrary to Uniloc’s contention, the Federal Circuit said that construction is not at odds with the plain meaning of the claims. The receiving client device is still “the intended recipient” of the message because it is the ultimate, in-tended destination of that message.  The Federal Circuit further further noted that the Board’s construction is supported by the prosecution history. The Federal Circuit said it arrived at its construction by focusing on the prosecution history, the specification, and the context of the particular claims in which the term “intercepting” appears, which outweighed Uniloc’s reliance on dictionary definitions, analogies, and the purported plain meaning of “intercepting” in isolation.

The Federal Circuit said it arrived at its construction by focusing on the prosecution history, the specification, and the context of the particular claims in which the term “intercepting” appears, which outweighed Uniloc’s reliance on dictionary definitions, analogies, and the purported plain meaning of “intercepting” in isolation.

Proper Claim Construction is Essential to a Determination of Patentabilty

Posted on by

In Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., [2020-1828, 2020-1867] (December 28, 2021), the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision that claims 1–9 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,838,949 were not unpatentable, because the PTAB failed to tie its construction of the phrase “hardware buffer” to the actual invention described in the specification. The Federal Circuit also vacated the Board’s decision that claims 16 and 17 were not unpatentable, because the Board failed to determine for itself whether there is sufficient corresponding structure in the specification to support the means-plus-function limitations in those claims to determine whether they are sufficiently definite to consider their validity. The ‘949 patent addresses a system with multiple processors, each of which must execute its own “boot code” to play its operational role in the system.

The Federal Circuit said that it was clear from the claim language that “hardware buffer” has meaning, but it is unclear what that meaning was. The Federal Circuit said that there is no definition to be found in the intrinsic evidence, and the determination of that meaning depends on understanding what the intrinsic evidence makes clear is the substance of the invention—what the inventor “intended to envelop.” The Federal Circuit concluded that the Board did not do enough to reach and articulate that understanding, and its claim construction is therefore wanting. The Federal Circuit explained that what was needed, then, was an analysis of the specification to arrive at an understanding of what it teaches about what a “hardware buffer” is, based on both how it uses relevant words and its substantive explanations. In this crucial respect, the Board fell short in its analysis here, and we think the Board is better positioned
than we are to correct the deficiencies.

The Federal Circuit noted that the Board’s construction was entirely a negative one—excluding “temporary” buffers. The Federal Circuit said that although there is no per se rule against negative constructions, which in some cases can be enough to resolve the relevant dispute, the Board’s construction in the present case was inadequate. It was not clear what precisely constitutes a
“temporary buffer” as recited in the Board’s construction.

With respect to claims 16 and 17, there is no dispute that claim 16 (and hence dependent claim 17) contains terms that are in means-plus-function format governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Because Intel agreed with the Board’s suggestion in the institution decision that two of the means-plus-function terms
in claim 16 were indefinite for lack of supporting structure, the Board concluded that Intel’s statement necessarily meant that Intel, as the petitioner, had not met its burden to demonstrate the unpatentability of those claims.

The Federal Circuit held that this was error and that a remand was required, because the Board did not
decide for itself whether required structure is present in the specification or whether, even if it was not, the absence of such structure precludes resolution of Intel’s prior-art challenges. The Federal Circuit added that to avoid confusion going forward, the Board should, in IPRs where Impossibility because indefiniteness applies, clearly state that the final written decision does not include a determination of patentability of any claim that falls within the impossibility category.

Even If Phrase Was In the Preamble, it is a Claim Limitation that was Not Met

Posted on by

In Simo Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong Ucloudlink Network Technology Ltd., [2019-2411] (January 5, 2021) the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s final judgment of $8,230,654 for infringement of claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 9,736,689, on apparatuses and methods that allow individuals to reduce roaming charges on cellular networks, rejecting the district court’s claim construction.

At issue was whether claim 8 required a a “non-local calls database.” The Federal Circuit noted that the language at issue follows, rather than precedes, the word “comprising,” which is one of the transition words that typically mark the end of the preamble, with what follows constituting the body of the claim. The Federal Circuit said that the placement of the language suggests that it is part of the body of the claim, a characterization that, if accepted, would place its limiting character beyond dispute. However. the parties treated the language at issue as part of the preamble, treating only the succeeding six paragraphs as the body of the claim. But even under that characterization, the Federal Circuit concluded, the language at issue is limiting. By supplying the only structure for the claimed apparatus, the Federal Circuit said that the preamble language supplies “essential structure,” and the body does not define “a structurally complete invention”—which are two key reasons for preamble language to be deemed limiting. Further supporting its conclusion that the “preamble” was limiting, the Federal Circuit noted thatthe opening language of the preamble provided an antecedent basis for terms in the body of the claim.

Simo argued that even if some parts of the preamble are limiting, some components, including the disputed “non-local calls database”, should not be deemed limiting, because they are “unnecessary to perform the functions specified after the preamble. However, the Federal Circuit declined to parse the preamble in that way where the preamble supplies the only structure of the claimed device and the disputed language does not merely identify an intended use or functional property but is “intertwined with the rest of the preamble.”

The Federal Circuit rejected the district court’s conclusion that claim 8 does not require a “non-local calls database.” The determinative issue was the phrase “a plurality of memory, processors, programs, communication circuitry, authentication data stored on a subscribed identify module (SIM) card and/or in memory and non-local calls database.” The Federal Circuit said that the district court treated the word “and” near the end of the phrase as meaning “and/or,” incorrectly concluding that “a plurality of” requires only “at least two” members selected from the entire list of identified items (memory, processors, etc.). The Federal Circuit said instead. “a plurality of” requires at least two of each of the listed items in the phrase at issue in claim 8.

Having concluded that the a non-local calls database was a required element, the finding of infringement should be reversed, and summary judgment of non-infringement should be granted.

Apparatus Claims Sometimes Incorporate Process Limitations, but Not this Time

Posted on by

In Vectura Limited v. Glaxosmithkline LLC, [2020-1054] (November 19, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court determination that U.S. Patent No. 8,303,991 directed to the production of “composite active particles” for use in pulmonary administration was not invalid and was infringed. The jury awarded $89,712,069 in damages, and after unsuccessful motions for JMOL and a new trial, Glaxosmithkline appealed.

The construction of two claim terms were relevant to the appeal. First, the court construed the phrase “promotes the dispersion of the composite active particles” (the dispersion limitation) to mean “wherein a composition that contains one or more composite active particles has increased dispersion of the active material upon activating a delivery device for inhalation into the lungs by a patient, as compared to the same composition wherein unmodified active particles are substituted for the composite active particles.” Second, the court construed the term “composite active particles.” The court construed the term to mean “[a] single particulate entit[y/ies] made up of a particle of active material to which one or more particles of additive material are fixed such that the active and additive particles do not separate in the airstream.”

The parties agreed that, under the district court’s construction of the dispersion limitation, Vectura needed to prove that the use of magnesium stearate in the accused inhalers improves the dispersion of the active ingredient compared to identical products in which only the lactose excipient is coated with magnesium stearate. On appeal GSK argued that there was no substantial evidence of infringement as to that limitation because Vectura staked its case on a defective scientific test. However the flaw in GSK’s position was that Vecture did not rely exclusively on the allegedly defective tests.

While the allegedly defective test was not perfect, the Federal Circuit said that a jury could conclude that despite its drawbacks, the study generally supported the view that coating the active ingredient with magnesium stearate improves dispersion of the active ingredient. The Federal Circuit said that regardless of any infirmities in the test, there was ample other evidence at trial indicating that magnesium stearate improves the dispersion of active ingredients.

GSK also challenged the district court’s construction of the claim term “composite active particles,” contending that the court should have construed that term to require that the composite particles be produced by the “high-energy milling” process referred to in the specification. The Federal Circuit noted that GSK’s argument falls between two prior cases: Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In Andersen, the Federal Circuit construed an apparatus claim to include a process limitation. While in Continental Circuits, the Federal Circuit declined to import a process limitation into an apparatus claim. In both cases, the Federal Circuit recognized that “process steps can be treated as part of the product claim if the patentee has made clear that the process steps are an essential part of the claimed invention.”

The Federal Circuit noted that although the ’991 patent contains a few statements suggesting that its high-energy milling is required, those statements are outweighed by the numerous statements indicating that high-energy milling is merely a preferred process. The Federal Circuit thus concluded that the specification of the ’991 patent does not make its milling method an essential part of apparatus claim 1. The Federal Circuit also rejected also reject GSK’s argument that the prosecution history requires “composite active particles” to be construed to include a process limitation, and affirmed the district court’s claim construction

“Upper” and “Lower” Claim Limitations Leaves Patent Owner Feeling Down

Posted on by

The Tops Company, Inc. sued Koko’s Confectionery & Novelty for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,660,316, and for trade dress infringement.

The claims of the ‘316 patent required upper and lower chambers:

However the district found on summary judgment that while Koko’s Squeezy Squirt Pop had two chambers, they were not upper and lower chambers, nor were they equivalent to upper and lower chambers.

Directional references in claims such as upper and lower, left and right, top and bottom, etc., can cause problems are best avoided unless the directions are important. While Topps may still prevail on appeal, the wording of the claims has complicated their enforcement efforts.

Pointed Tip is Not a Substantially Flat Surface

Posted on by

In Neville v. Foundation Constructors, Inc., [2020-1132] (August 27, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,914,236 and 9,284,708 relating to foundation piles.

The parties disputed the construction of two claim limitations relating to the “end plate,” which separate the claims at issue into two groups. The first set of claims require an “end plate having a substantially flat surface disposed perpendicular to the centerline of the tubular pile. The second set of claims require “at least one protrusion extending outwardly from the end plate.”

The Patented Product vs. Accused Product: Can you find the end plate with the flat surface?

The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement as to accused products having finding the accused products “lack (1) an end plate having a substantially flat surface and (2) an end plate with at least one protrusion extending outwardly from it. The district court reasoned that the plain meaning of “end plate having a substantially flat surface” did not encompass “an interior surface facing into the rest of the pile tip.” The district concluded that the patent applicant intended the “substantially flat surface” of the end plate to refer to the side of the end plate facing outward, citing each of the patent figures, as well as from how Plaintiff used the phrase ‘substantially flat surface’ to distinguish the claims from the prior art.

The Federal Circuit agreed that read in light of the specification, the phrase “substantially flat surface disposed perpendicular to the centerline of the tubular pile” does not refer to any interior-facing surface. As suggested by the word “end,” the relevant surface of the end plate is the external one. The Federal Circuit found that the specification reinforces the view that the invention is directed to the exterior surface of the end plate as being “substantially flat.” The Federal Circuit found that the prosecution history likewise confirms that the substantially flat surface of the end plate does not refer to an interior surface.

For similar reasons, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the accused pile tip does not include “at least one protrusion extending outwardly from the end plate.” Nothing in the specification remotely suggests that, contrary to the plain meaning of a “protrusion” and “ex-tending outwardly,” the protrusion could be an indistinguishable part of the end plate from which it protrudes.

The Federal Circuit found that the district court correctly ruled that the “single, conically-shaped” end piece of the accused pile tips does not meet the claimed “protrusion extending outwardly from the end plate.