`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`
`WESTERNGECO L.L.C.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION,
`et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`
`CASE NO. 4:09-CV-1827
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
` number of motions for summary judgment are pending before the Court.
`
` A
`
`Broadly, those motions can be divided into two categories: (1) motions addressing patent
`
`invalidity; and (2) motions addressing patent infringement. In this Memorandum and
`
`Order, the Court considers first the invalidity motions, including Defendants’ Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment of Patent Invalidity of the Bittleston Patents (Doc. No. 273), and
`
`Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Patent Invalidity of the Zajac Patent
`
`(Doc. No. 270). The Court also considers, in examining invalidity, the portion of
`
`Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Willful Infringement of the ‘520 Patent
`
`(Doc. No. 276) in which Plaintiff moves for summary judgment on patent validity. After
`
`considering these three motions, all responses thereto, and the applicable law, the Court
`
`concludes that each motion must be denied.
`
`The second category of motions at issue, those that address patent infringement,
`
`includes Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of the
`
`
`
`1
`
`1
`
`ION 1023
`
`
`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 345 Filed in TXSD on 06/11/12 Page 60 of 95
`
`In urging their interpretation of claim 18, Defendants compare claim 18 to claim
`
`1, which requires “a control system configured to operate in one or more control modes
`
`selected from a feather angle mode, a turn control mode, and a streamer separation
`
`mode.” (‘520 patent at claim 1 (emphasis added).) Defendants acknowledge that the
`
`language in claim 1 “makes clear that the control system need only be configured to
`
`operate in one control mode.” (Doc. No. 298 at 9.) However, they suggest that because
`
`the “in one or more control modes” language is absent from claim 18, claim 18 requires
`
`something different from claim 1—it requires the control system to be configured to
`
`operate in all of the listed control modes.
`
`Defendants are correct that, “[w]hen different words or phrases are used in
`
`separate claims, a difference in meaning is presumed.” Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc., 424
`
`F.3d 1136, 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Tandon Corp. v. United States Int’l Trade
`
`Comm’n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). However, “[d]ifferent terms or phrases
`
`in separate claims may be construed to cover the same subject matter where the written
`
`description and prosecution history indicate that such a reading of the terms or phrases is
`
`proper.” Id. (citing Tandon, 831 F.2d at 1023-24). Here, the slightly different wording of
`
`the two claims, when read in the context of the specification and in light of general
`
`principles of claim construction, does not indicate that a difference in meaning was
`
`intended.
`
`First, it is important to note the context in which the ‘520 patent’s 34 claims are
`
`provided. The claims are divided into 17 method claims and 17 apparatus claims. Each
`
`method claim has a corresponding apparatus claim. Claim 1 is the method claim that
`
`corresponds to the apparatus in claim 18; in examining these parallel claims, it seems
`
`
`
`60
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 345 Filed in TXSD on 06/11/12 Page 61 of 95
`
`clear that the drafters intended them to require the same thing, that is, that the control
`
`system could be configured to operate in at least one of the enumerated modes.
`
`More importantly, this interpretation of the claim language is supported by
`
`established principles of claim construction. The Federal Circuit has made clear that the
`
`use of the indefinite article “a”, as used in claim 18 (“a control system configured to use a
`
`control mode selected from”), denotes “one or more.” See Crystal Semiconductor Corp.
`
`v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing
`
`cases). Although Crystal and the cases cited therein consider the meaning of “a” when it
`
`is followed by open-ended transitional phrases, such as “comprising,” the Court finds the
`
`same interpretation applicable to this claim. Because the Court reads “a” to mean “one or
`
`more,” the Court reads claim 18 to mean “a control system configured to use one or more
`
`control modes, selected from” the list of four. As such, claim 18 is construed to include
`
`the same language that, when used in claim 1, convinced Defendants that the control
`
`system needed to be configured to operate in only one control mode. The Court’s
`
`interpretation of the indefinite article “a”, combined with Defendants’ interpretation of
`
`claim 1, persuades the Court that only one of the four options must be practiced in order
`
`for infringement to lie.
`
`Finally, the use of the phrase “selected from” further supports this construction.
`
`“Selected from” denotes one of several styles known in patent practice as “Markush
`
`groups,” although the precise label is unimportant. A Markush group typically is
`
`expressed in the form: “a member selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C.”
`
`Abbott Labs. v. Baxter Pharm. Prods., Inc., 334 F.3d 1274, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Where
`
`such a form is expressed, courts are to read the members of the Markush group as
`
`
`
`61
`
`3
`
`