United States District Court, D. Oregon
Steven T. Lovett, Kassim M. Ferris, Nathan C. Brunette, STOEL RIVES LLP, Portland, Oregon, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Gary L. Eastman, EASTMAN & McCARTNEY LLP, San Diego, California, Michael E. Haglund, HAGLUND KELLEY LLP, Portland, Oregon, Attorneys for Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff Skedco, Inc. brings this action against Defendant Strategic Operations, Inc., alleging that Defendant infringes Claims 18-20 of United States Patent No. 8, 342, 652 ("the '852 Patent") which discloses a system for simulating hemorrhages in the training of first responders. The United States, through the Secretary of the Army, owns the '852 Patent. Plaintiff alleges that it is the sole and exclusive licensee of the '852 Patent under an agreement which also gives Plaintiff the right to bring this action in its own name. Sec. Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 10, 11.
On May 16, 2014, the parties submitted a Joint Proposed Claim Construction Chart identifying six disputed terms or phrases in Claim 18 of the '852 Patent. The parties then simultaneously filed opening claim construction memoranda and simultaneous responsive memoranda. Oral argument was held July 25, 2014.
At the conclusion of oral argument, I resolved the disputes as to five of the contested terms or phrases. I took construction of the phrase "controller connected to" under advisement and allowed Defendant to submit a response to a newly cited case by Plaintiff. Having now considered the case and the supplemental briefing, I construe "controller" as "an activation mechanism, " and I construe "connected to" as "joined, united, or linked to."
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
I. General Rules
"[T]he construction of a patent, including terms of art within its claim, is exclusively within the province of the court." Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. , 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). Claims are construed independently and not simply as a choice between the parties' proposed constructions. Exxon Chem. Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp. , 64 F.3d 1553, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1995). "[C]laims should be so construed, if possible, as to sustain their validity." ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp. , 732 F.2d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The claim language specifies "the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.'" Markman , 517 U.S. at 373 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 112).
To construe a patent claim, courts look to the language of the claims in the patent itself, the description in the patent's specification, and the prosecution history of the patent, all of which constitute a record "on which the public is entitled to rely." Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc. , 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see also Dow Chem. Co. v. Sumitomo Chem. Co. , 257 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Claim language is given its "ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art." Dow Chem. Co. , 257 F.3d at 1372 (citation omitted). Courts cannot rewrite claims, but must "give effect to the terms chosen by the patentee." K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A. , 191 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In most cases, the court should be able to resolve ambiguous claim terms by analyzing only the intrinsic evidence. See Phillips v. AWH Corp. , 415 F.3d 1303, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
II. Claim Language
"The actual words of the claim are the controlling focus." Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc. , 149 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The starting point for claim construction is a disputed term's ordinary meaning. Phillips , 415 F.3d at 1313. Ordinary meaning, in the patent claim construction context, is the meaning that a person of ordinary skill in the art would attribute to a claim term in the context of the entire patent at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application. ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc. , 558 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
There is a "heavy presumption" that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning, and any party seeking to convince a court that a term has some other meaning "must, at the very least, " point to statements in the written description that affect the patent's scope. Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp. , 175 F.3d 985, 989 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (internal quotations marks omitted). This may be accomplished if: (1) "a different meaning [is] clearly and deliberately set forth in the intrinsic materials" of the patent; or (2) use of "the ordinary and accustomed meaning... would deprive the claim of clarity[.]" K-2 Corp., 191 F.3d at 1363. In making this assessment, the court should use common sense and "the understanding of those of ordinary skill in the art" of the patent at issue, unless the patent history supplies another meaning. Id. at 1365; Digital Biometrics , 149 F.3d at 1344.
"An accused infringer may overcome this heavy presumption' and narrow a claim term's ordinary meaning, but he cannot do so simply by pointing to the preferred embodiment or other structures or steps disclosed in the specification or prosecution history." CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp. , 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). As explained by the Federal Circuit:
[A] court may constrict the ordinary meaning of a claim term in at least one of four ways. First, the claim term will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history. Second, a claim term will not carry its ordinary meaning if the intrinsic evidence shows that the patentee distinguished that term from prior art on the basis of a particular embodiment, expressly disclaimed subject matter, or described a particular embodiment as important to the invention.
Third, ... a claim term also will not have its ordinary meaning if the term chosen by the patentee so deprives the claim of clarity as to require resort to the other intrinsic evidence for a definite meaning. Last, as a matter of statutory authority, a claim term will cover nothing more than the corresponding structure or step disclosed in the specification, as well as equivalents thereto, if the patentee phrased the claim in step- or means-plus-function format.
Id. at 1366-67 (citations, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted).
III. The Patent's Specification
"[C]laims are always construed in light of the specification, of which they are a part." Netword, LLC v. Centraal Corp. , 242 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001). "[T]hat claims are interpreted in light of the specification does not mean that everything expressed in the specification must be read into all the claims." SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am. , 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (internal quotations marks omitted). It is improper to import, or "read in" to a claim, a limitation from the specification's general discussion, embodiments, and examples. E.g., Enercon GmbH v. Int'l Trade Comm'n , 151 F.3d 1376, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n , 946 F.2d 821, 836 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("[w]here a specification does not require a limitation, that limitation should not be read from the specification into the claims") (internal quotation marks omitted); Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc. , 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed language in the claims, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the claims.").
Still, "[c]laims are not interpreted in a vacuum[.]" Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc. , 810 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987). "[T]he specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." Vitronics , 90 F.3d at 1582. Thus, it is improper to eliminate, ignore, or "read out" a claim limitation in order to extend a patent to subject matter disclosed, but not claimed. See, e.g., Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp. , 93 F.3d 1572, 1582-83 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Claims may not "enlarge what is patented beyond what the inventor has described as the invention." Netword, LLC , 242 F.3d at 1352. For example, when the patent specification describes the invention as including a feature, the claims should be construed to require that feature. See, e.g., Watts v. XL Sys., Inc. , 232 F.3d 877, 883 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Similarly, when the specification criticizes or disclaims certain features in the prior art, the claims should not be read to encompass the criticized features. SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. , 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding that the criticism of one type of "lumen" in patent excluded that type from construction of the claim term).
Finally, claims should not be limited to the preferred embodiment. CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Tura LP , 112 F.3d 1146, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Amhil Enter., Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc. , 81 F.3d 1554, 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that "[a] preferred embodiment... is just that, and the scope of a patentee's claims is not necessarily or automatically limited to the preferred embodiment").
"[T]he distinction between using the specification to interpret the meaning of a claim and importing limitations from the specification into the claim can be a difficult one to apply in practice." Phillips , 415 F.3d at 1323. "[T]here is sometimes a fine line between reading a claim in light of the specification, and reading a limitation into the claim from the specification." Decisioning. com, Inc. v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. , 527 F.3d 1300, 1307-08 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[A]ttempting to resolve that problem in the context of the particular patent is likely to capture the scope of the actual invention more accurately than either strictly limiting the scope of the claims to the embodiments disclosed in the specification or divorcing the claim language from the specification[.]" Id. at 1308 (internal quotation marks omitted). There is therefore "no magic formula or catechism for conducting claim construction, " and the court must "read the specification in light of its purposes in order to determine whether the patentee is setting out specific examples of the invention to accomplish those goals, or whether the patentee instead intends for the claims and the embodiments in the specification to be strictly coextensive." Id . (internal quotation marks omitted). In walking this "tightrope, " Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC , 474 F.3d 1361, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the court hews to the question of "how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim terms." Phillips , 415 F.3d at 1323.
IV. Prosecution History
Prosecution history of a patent with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) "limits the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance." Jonsson v. Stanley Works , 903 F.2d 812, 817 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). The prosecution "history contains the complete record of all the proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, including any express representations made by the applicant regarding the scope of the claims. As such, the record before the [USPTO] is often of critical significance in determining the meaning of the claims." Vitronics , 90 F.3d at 1582-83. Any statements or actions made in the prosecution history by the patentee characterizing what the claimed invention includes or excludes provide notice to the public as to the scope of the claims and therefore are binding on the construction of the claims. See, e.g., Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'l, Inc. , 222 F.3d 951, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (allowing patentee to erase actions in the prosecution history would be "inimical to the public notice function provided by the prosecution history.").
V. Extrinsic Evidence
Consideration of intrinsic evidence will resolve any claim term ambiguity in most circumstances. See Phillips , 415 F.3d at 1313-14. Where it does not, however, the court may consider certain "extrinsic evidence." See id. at 1317. Expert testimony, for example, may provide helpful background on the technology at issue, explain how an invention works, or establish that a claim term has a particular meaning in the relevant field. See id. at 1319. Dictionaries and treatises may also be helpful in this regard. Id. at 1318. However, precedent counsels against reliance on dictionary definitions at the expense of the specification because such reliance "focuses the inquiry on the abstract meaning of words rather than on the meaning of claim terms within the context of the patent." Id. at 1321; see also Nystrom v. TREX Co. , 424 F.3d 1136, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In the end, the court's ultimate goal is to construe the disputed terms in a manner consistent with the way the inventor defined them and a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand them. j2 Global Commc'ns Inc. v. Captaris Inc., No. CV 09-04150 DDP (AJWx), 2011 WL 837923, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2011). "The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent's description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction." Phillips , 415 F.3d at 1316 (internal quotation marks omitted).
I. Overview of the '852 Patent
The short description of the '852 Patent is a "Trauma Training System." Ex. A to Sec. Am. Compl. at 1. It was issued by the USPTO on January 1, 2013. Id . The abstract describes the invention as follows:
A system for simulating one or more hemorrhages in order to provide a more dynamic and realistic hemorrhage simulation in order to train medical personnel and other critical care givers, such as first responders, medics, and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) on treating hemorrhages. The system includes a reservoir, a flow controller, and at least one conduit connected to at least one simulated wound site wherein the system supplies fluid to the simulated wound site in order to simulate a hemorrhage. The system may further include a plurality of wound sites that have their respective fluid flows controlled by the fluid flow controller. In at least one embodiment, the reservoir and the flow controller are housed ...