Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/15/15 1 of 19. PageID #: 864
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-00962-JZ
`Hon. Jack Zouhary, U.S. District Judge
`Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp, II
`
`JOINT PREHEARING STATEMENT
`PER LOCAL RULE 4.5
`
`
`
`
`SAUDER MANUFACTURING
`COMPANY,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`J SQUARED, INC. d/b/a UNIVERSITY
`LOFT COMPANY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Sauder Manufacturing Company
`
`(“Sauder” or
`
`“Plaintiff”) and Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff J Squared, Inc. d/b/a/ University Loft
`
`Company (“ULoft” or “Defendant”) submit their Joint Prehearing Statement in accordance with
`
`Loc. P. R. 4.5:
`
`Claim 1 – ‘136 Patent
`
`
`
`
`(A.) TERMS ON WHICH THE PARTIES AGREE
`
`
`TERM
`Upper portion
`
`Lower portion
`
`
`Engage
`Configurable
`
`First configuration
`
`
`AGREED MEANING
`A portion of the chair that
`provides a backrest
`A portion of the chair that has
`connective structure by which
`it is connected to the upper
`portion and has a portion
`capable of supporting a user in
`a seated position
`Contact (vb.)
`Capable of being arranged or
`placed in a configuration
`The coupled arrangement as in
`Figs. 1-4
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2005 p. 1
`
`

`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/15/15 2 of 19. PageID #: 865
`
`Second configuration
`
`The separated arrangement as
`shown, for example, in Figs.
`18, 19.
`
`
`Claim 12 – ‘136 Patent
`
`
`The parties agree the phrase “manually operable means for releasably engaging” is
`
`subject to construction according to 35 USC §112 ¶6. That is, the means-plus-function term
`
`“shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure … described in the specification and
`
`equivalents thereof.” The corresponding structure includes rear-mounted pivoting clip clamp
`
`latch 160 with pivoting handle 162, catch 164 and cooperating latch notch 324, and front-
`
`mounted claw 142 and claw notches 322.
`
`
`
`Claim 1 – ‘787 Patent
`
`
`
`The term “rocker rails” means rails curved from front to rear as on a conventional
`
`rocking chair. This excludes flat rails.
`
`
`
`(B.) THE TERMS IN DISPUTE
`
`‘136 PATENT
`
`CLAIM 1
`
`“Combination of”
`
`Sauder:
`
`This preamble phrase gives meaning to the word “combination” that
`
`occurs several times in the body of the claim. The preamble means the claimed invention
`
`consists of only two components: a floor rocker and a base. Support is provided in Figs. 1-4, 9,
`
`10, and 19, and the overall description, specifically col. 1, lines 49-67; col. 2, lines 1-8; col. 4,
`
`lines 18-23; col. 6, lines 44-48; and col. 8, lines 36-38. In the first configuration, the device is a
`
`2
`
`
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2005 p. 2
`
`

`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/15/15 3 of 19. PageID #: 866
`
`desk chair; Figs. 1-8, spec. col. 8, lines 56-58. In the second configuration, it is a floor rocker
`
`and a companion table. Figs. 14, 19, spec. col. 8, lines 12-24.
`
`ULoft:
`
`No construction necessary. But, if the Court chooses to construe it, it
`
`should construe the claim as open-ended, not limited to two components (a chair and a base), or
`
`at least construe “chair comprising” as open-ended such that the chair component may have parts
`
`in addition to those recited as part of the upper and lower portions. The term “comprises” makes
`
`clear that “combination” may include other elements, not only two components. See also,
`
`ULoft’s proposed constructions in the accompanying chart; ULoft’s Claims Construction Brief,
`
`at 13 (E.C.F. 53).
`
`
`
`“Chair”
`
`Sauder:
`
`This is the floor rocker. It consists of a seat, a backrest, and by virtue of
`
`the last paragraph to claim 1, rocker legs beneath the seat. Support is found in all drawing Figs.
`
`1-19, and in the specification, col. 1, lines 49-67; col. 2, lines 1-8; col. 4, lines 18-23; and col. 6,
`
`lines 44-48.
`
`ULoft:
`
`An article of furniture having a seat and a back and usually but not always
`
`having legs. The term “said chair comprising” is open-ended, so the chair may include
`
`elements other than those recited. See also, ULoft’s proposed constructions in the
`
`accompanying chart; ULoft’s Claims Construction Brief, at 13-14 (E.C.F. 53),
`
`
`
`“User”
`
`Sauder:
`
`The term “user” is defined as a person enjoying a “contemporary
`
`lifestyle,” is “active” and can perform functions such as “writing.” Support is found in the
`
`3
`
`
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2005 p. 3
`
`

`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/15/15 4 of 19. PageID #: 867
`
`specification, col. 1, lines 48-57; col. 3, lines 10-13; col. 8, lines 12-16; 20-25 and 36-38; col. 9,
`
`lines 66-67; and col. 10, lines 1-6. The net result of Sauder’s constructions of “chair” and “user”
`
`is to the effect that the chair is designed for an adult in the coupled configuration sitting at a
`
`desk.
`
`
`
`ULoft:
`
`No construction is necessary but, if the Court should choose to construe
`
`this term, “user” is one who uses the chair The claim does not recite any restriction as to the
`
`user’s age, size, lifestyle, activity level, or literacy. The terms “active” and “contemporary
`
`lifestyle” are used in the specification but not in the claim, constituting intrinsic evidence that
`
`Sauder intended the claim to be broader in scope than its current litigation-induced construction.
`
`See also, ULoft’s proposed constructions in the accompanying chart; ULoft’s Claims
`
`Construction Brief, at 16 (E.C.F. 53).
`
`
`
`”Coupled”
`
`Sauder:
`
`The term “coupled” clarifies the relation between the floor rocker and the
`
`base in the “first configuration”; i.e., they are locked together resisting movement in all
`
`directions. Support is found in Figs. 1-8 and 12-15 of the drawing and in the abstract. In the
`
`specification, support is found in col. 1, line 49; col. 3, lines 1-57; col. 4, lines 1-12; col. 5, lines
`
`1-67; col. 7, lines 9-13; and col. 8, lines 1-11, 36-63.
`
`ULoft:
`
`Connected but not necessarily locked together. ‘136 Patent, Col. 7, line
`
`63-Col. 8, line 11. See also, ULoft’s proposed constructions in the accompanying chart; ULoft's
`
`Claims Construction Brief (E.C.F. 53) and Exhibit 3 thereto (E.C.F. 53-3) for citations to
`
`intrinsic and extrinsic evidence in support of ULoft's proposed claim constructions, e.g., support
`
`in the ‘136 patent at 7:3 to 8:11.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2005 p. 4
`
`

`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/15/15 5 of 19. PageID #: 868
`
`
`
`“Manually Convertible”
`
`Sauder:
`
`This simply means the change between first and second configurations can
`
`be achieved without the use of tools. “Convertible” is a synonym for “reconfigurable.” Support
`
`is found at col. 6, lines 23-34.
`
`ULoft:
`
`Convertible by hand, including conversion by hand with the aid of tools
`
`(cf. claim 10). See also, ULoft’s proposed constructions in the accompanying chart.
`
`
`
`“Work Surface”
`
`Sauder:
`
`This is a direct reference to the top of the “saddle.” In ordinary parlance, a
`
`writing table surface is generally flat and free of significant obstructions. Spec. col. 8, line 19.
`
`The surface must be “accessible” as defined below. Support is found in Figs. 18 and 19 of the
`
`drawings and in the specification at col. 2, lines 23-25 and col. 8, lines 12-19.
`
`ULoft:
`
`The term in question is “work surface,” not “writing surface. ”The
`
`specification does not contain a disclaimer of any kind of “work” as to depart from the plain
`
`meaning of the term “work surface.” “Work surface” is not limited by its terms, or by any
`
`definition in the specification, to any particular type of work. “Work surface” is generally
`
`understood to be any surface on which work can be performed. See also, ULoft’s proposed
`
`constructions in the accompanying chart.
`
`
`
`“Accessible”
`
`Sauder:
`
`This term defines the level of the saddle surface when the rocker and base
`
`are decoupled and placed next to one another on the floor as in Figs. 18 and 19. To be
`
`5
`
`
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2005 p. 5
`
`

`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/15/15 6 of 19. PageID #: 869
`
`“accessible,” the work surface of the saddle must fall somewhere near the middle of the backrest.
`
`Support and clear meaning is imported by Figs. 18 and 19 of the drawing, as well as the
`
`specification at col. 8, lines 12-35. It is common knowledge that a surface which is too high to
`
`be compatible with a writing function is not “accessible” for the purposes described in the
`
`specification.
`
`ULoft:
`
`No construction necessary but, if the Court chooses to construe it,
`
`Plaintiff’s proposed construction with its height limitation is improper because it imports a
`
`limitation from the specification. See, also, ULoft’s proposed constructions in the accompanying
`
`chart; ULoft’s Claims Construction Brief, at 16 (E.C.F. 53).
`
`
`
`“Assembly”
`
`Sauder:
`
`Structural unit positioned below seat to support seat and provide rockers.
`
`ULoft:
`
`A collection of manufactured parts fitted together, distinct from the lower
`
`portion and its sitting portion, and from the upper portion, but which does not include a latch.
`
`See ‘136 Patent, claim 6, which claims a latch; see also, Prosecution History of ‘136 Patent,
`
`Response to Office Action, dated February 26, 2014; “Applicant-Initiated Interview Summary,”
`
`dated May 15, 2013; “Prosecution History of ‘136 Patent, “Request for Reconsideration” and
`
`Entry of Amendments under 37 C.F.R. 1.116; Acknowledgment of Telephone Interview Filed
`
`June 2, 2013; See also, ULoft’s proposed constructions in the accompanying chart;; ULoft’s
`
`Claims Construction Brief, at 19-20 (E.C.F. 53) and Exhibits 3-4.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2005 p. 6
`
`

`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/15/15 7 of 19. PageID #: 870
`
`“Positioned Below”
`
`Sauder:
`
`The location of the structure forming the rocker legs relative to the seat
`
`and not merely to a difference in altitude. Sauder’s proposed meaning is supported by Figs. 1-3,
`
`17, 18, and 19 of the drawing. Support is also found in the specification at col. 2, lines 35-46.
`
`The term “below” was also defined in some detail in the “Amendment after Final” filed in the
`
`prosecution of then pending sister application serial number 14-057, 781 which gave rise to the
`
`‘787 patent. The Examiner specifically approved of that interpretation or construction under the
`
`heading “Allowable Subject Matter” on page 2 of the “Notice of Allowability” dated December
`
`5, 2014 in that same application. Exhibit F to Sauder’s Brief. Note specifically the Examiner’s
`
`conclusion “regarding claim 27, upon further consideration and in view of applicant’s arguments,
`
`the rocker members of Wright are not considered ‘beneath’ the seat undersurface, as this
`
`limitation has taken to mean vertically underneath and the rocker members of Wright are along
`
`the sides of the seat portion. Additionally, there is no teaching, suggesting, or motivation to
`
`modify the prior art of record absent hindsight.” See also the first office action in the application
`
`serial no. 13-277778 on page 27, emphasizing that the rocker legs extend “downward” from the
`
`seat.
`
`ULoft:
`
`Positioned at least partially below. This limitation is not given any special
`
`definition or meaning in the specification and should be construed according to its plain
`
`meaning. ‘136 Patent, Fig. 5; Webster’s Dictionary definition of “below” as “in or to a lower
`
`place than.” The claim language does not require the assembly to be positioned below the sitting
`
`portion at all times, just when the combination is in the second configuration. See also, ULoft’s
`
`proposed constructions in the accompanying chart. See ULoft's Claims Construction Brief
`
`7
`
`
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2005 p. 7
`
`

`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/15/15 8 of 19. PageID #: 871
`
`(E.C.F. 53) and Exhibit 3 thereto (E.C.F. 53-3) for citations to intrinsic and extrinsic evidence in
`
`support of ULoft's proposed claim constructions.
`
`
`
`“Base Legs Structured so as to Function as Rockers”
`
`Sauder:
`
`The floor rocker has integral rocker legs. Sauder construes this as a
`
`structural recitation, particularly in view of the word “structured.” “Rockers” is found in the
`
`abstract and in col. 6, lines 35-50. See also the file history, including the “Request for
`
`Reconsideration” at page 11.
`
`
`
`ULoft:
`
`Legs which enable rocking, but not necessarily rocker legs. This
`
`limitation is not given any special definition or meaning in the specification and should be
`
`construed according to its plain meaning and broader than just “rockers.” See Webster’s
`
`Dictionary definition of “rocker,” defined as “any of various devices that work with a rocking
`
`motion” or “a curved piece of wood or metal on which an object (such as a cradle or chair”)
`
`moves back and forth from side to side; see also, ‘136 Patent, Claim 4; Prosecution History of
`
`‘136 Patent, Response to Office Action, filed February 26, 2014; “Applicant-Initiated Interview
`
`Summary,” dated May 15, 2013; “Prosecution History of ‘136 Patent, “Request for
`
`Reconsideration” and Entry of Amendments under 37 C.F.R. 1.116; Acknowledgment of
`
`Telephone Interview Filed June 2, 2013. ULoft’s proposed constructions in the accompanying
`
`chart;; ULoft’s Claims Construction Brief, at 21-23 (E.C.F. 53) and Exhibits 3-4.
`
`
`
`“Stool Base”
`
`Sauder:
`
`A base capable of being coupled to the floor rocker and of a height to
`
`create a desk chair in the “first configuration” and a writing table in the “second configuration.”
`
`8
`
`
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2005 p. 8
`
`

`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/15/15 9 of 19. PageID #: 872
`
`Support is found in all drawing figures and our spec. col. 2, lines 64-67; col. 3, lines 1-3; and col.
`
`7, lines 7-44.
`
`ULoft:
`
`No construction necessary; or, article of furniture normally having
`
`multiple legs, not necessarily a columnar type base ULoft’s proposed constructions are all in
`
`the accompanying chart.
`
`
`
`“The Perimeter Edge” and “Rotationally Asymmetric”
`
`CLAIM 3
`
`Sauder:
`
`This term refers to the entire edge surface of the saddle and states with
`
`clarity that it has readily identifiable front and back edges.
`
`The specification states that “rotational asymmetry” is key to the capability of the
`
`coupling of the rocker and base in only one mutual orientation. This excludes a saddle that
`
`would allow multiple coupling orientations. The specification provides latitude in stating that
`
`geometries other than trapezoidal may be used. Sauder advocates a construction in which the
`
`saddle has any physical characteristic that allows the combination to be coupled in only one
`
`mutual orientation and provides visual indication of which edge is the front edge. Support is
`
`found in the specification col. 2, lines 32-34; col. 7, lines 45-67; and col. 8, lines 1-11, 44-63.
`
`ULoft:
`
`Perimeter Edge: The outer boundary of an object. See ‘136 Patent, 7:49-
`
`52. Plaintiff’s proposed construction suggests that the “perimeter edge” limitation should further
`
`be construed to include something that “states with clarity that it has readily identifiable front
`
`and back edges.” This improperly imports a limitation from the specification.
`
`Rotationally Asymmetric: The shape of the top or uppermost surface of the saddle
`
`having a rotationally asymmetric geometry, without consideration of any structure below the top
`
`9
`
`
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2005 p. 9
`
`

`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/15/15 10 of 19. PageID #: 873
`
`or uppermost surface.
`
` See Meriam-Webster’s Dictionary, www.m-w.com, defining
`
`“asymmetrical” as “not symmetrical” or “having two sides or halves that are not the same.” ‘136
`
`Patent, Col. 7, line 63-Col 8, line 11; 7:65-8:5; 7:56-62; 8:10-11. See also, ULoft’s proposed
`
`constructions in the accompanying chart; Defendant’s brief and accompanying exhibits for
`
`support in intrinsic and extrinsic evidence for Defendant’s proposed construction, e.g., support in
`
`the ‘136 patent at 7:49-52; 7:63-8:11; 7:65-8:5; 7:56-62.
`
`
`
`“Receptacle”
`
`Sauder:
`
`This term defines an aspect of the structure underlying the seat to
`
`surroundly receive the saddle in an orientation that allows the latch to function. See above; for
`
`example, col. 8, lines 36-63.
`
`ULoft:
`
`This term, among others in claim 3, has no antecedent basis, and claim 3 is
`
`therefore prima facie invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶2.
`
`
`
`“Latch”
`
`CLAIM 6
`
`Sauder:
`
`This part of the coupling mechanism is carried in principal part by the
`
`chair, cooperates with the saddle, and necessarily has closed and open positions. When in the
`
`“open” position, the chair can be placed on or removed from the stool base, and when the latch is
`
`in the “closed” position, a portion of the latch contacts and limits movement of the floor rocker
`
`relative to the saddle. “Latch” is used throughout the specification, specifically in the connection
`
`with reference 160; see for example col. 5, lines 55+ and col. 6, lines 23-34.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2005 p. 10
`
`

`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/15/15 11 of 19. PageID #: 874
`
`ULoft:
`
`The specification does not provide a special definition or meaning of latch,
`
`and thus it should be given its ordinary and plain meaning. A latch is a device that holds
`
`something in place by entering a notch or cavity, e.g., a male part that goes into a notch or cavity,
`
`or a device with a female part that goes onto a male part. Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate
`
`Dictionary, defining a “latch” as a device that holds something in place by entering a notch or
`
`cavity. See also, ULoft's Claims Construction Brief (E.C.F. 53) and Exhibit 3 thereto (E.C.F. 53-
`
`3) for citations to intrinsic and extrinsic evidence in support of ULoft's proposed claim
`
`constructions, e.g., support in the ‘136 patent at 9:7-10.
`
`
`
`CLAIM 7
`
`“Said Saddle Cooperates with Said Lower Portion Latch so that Said Saddle is
`Releasably Captured by Said Latch.”
`
`
`Sauder:
`
`This term should be construed to mean that the latch of Claim 6, when in
`
`the closed position completes the coupling and holds the saddle against movement. The
`
`moveable part of the latch is on the chair. Support is found at col. 6, lines 1-23.
`
`ULoft:
`
`Saddle is releasably held by the latch. ULoft’s proposed constructions are
`
`all in the accompanying chart. See Exhibit 3 to ULoft’s Claims Construction Brief, and
`
`Webster’s Dictionary definition of “capture” therein.
`
`
`
`CLAIM 9
`
`“Pedestal” and “Connector”
`
`Sauder:
`
`A term of art calling for a single columnar support. The term points to
`
`component 334 and creates a strong presumption that the “pedestal” portion of the base is a
`
`11
`
`
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2005 p. 11
`
`

`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/15/15 12 of 19. PageID #: 875
`
`single, generally centralized columnar support for the chair. Support is found in the specification
`
`at col. 2, line 66 and in col. 7, lines 28-44. See also Figs. 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the drawing.
`
`Plaintiff Sauder is also submitted extrinsic evidence, Brief Exhibit E, which is incorporated
`
`herein by reference to show that the word “pedestal” is a well understood term of art in the
`
`furniture business, and is used in particular in combination with the words “table” and “chair.”
`
`The “connector” is anything that securely joins the base to the saddle but allows the saddle to
`
`rotate about a vertical axis.
`
`ULoft:
`
` “Pedestal:” A pedestal may have one or more legs. See ‘136 Patent, Col.
`
`9, II 54-56; Col. 7, II. 21-22 and 37-39; Fig. 23; See also, ULoft’s proposed constructions in the
`
`accompanying chart; ULoft's Claims Construction Brief (E.C.F. 53) and Exhibit 3 thereto
`
`(E.C.F. 53-3) for citations to intrinsic and extrinsic evidence in support of ULoft's proposed
`
`claim constructions.
`
`
`
`“Connector:” A connector on the pedestal, whether as part of the pedestal or part of the
`
`saddle, or common to both. The connector is a separate component between the saddle and the
`
`pedestal or the post. ‘136 Patent, 7:37-29.
`
`
`
`“Radiating Outwardly”
`
`CLAIM 13
`
`Sauder:
`
`The legs radiate outward from a common vertical axis and are more
`
`horizontal than vertical. These are elements 330 in the drawing figures. See also specification
`
`col. 7, lines 24 and 25.
`
`ULoft:
`
`Extending or spreading in an outward direction at any angle from a
`
`location or point. The limitation “radiating outwardly” is not given any special definition or
`
`12
`
`
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2005 p. 12
`
`

`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/15/15 13 of 19. PageID #: 876
`
`meaning in the specification and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Oxford’s
`
`Dictionary defines “radiating” means to “diverge or spread from or as if from a central point.”
`
`See also, ULoft’s proposed constructions in the accompanying chart; ULoft's Claims
`
`Construction Brief (E.C.F. 53), at 29-30.
`
`
`
`(C.)
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF THE TERMS THAT EACH OF THE
`PARTIES CONTEND (I) WOULD REQUIRE A DISPOSITION OF
`THE CASE IN ITS FAVOR AND/OR (II) WILL BE
`SUBSTANTIALLY CONDUCIVE TO PROMOTING
`SETTLEMENT.
`
`
`Sauder:
`
`The constructions urged by it for any of claims 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 would
`
`support a disposition on both infringement and validity issues in its favor; i.e., the claims would
`
`be harmonious with the patent disclosure, would read on the accused ULoft WAVE chair and
`
`would prima facie distinguish from the prior art. For example, claim 9 would be explained to the
`
`jury essentially as follows:
`
`The claimed invention consists of a floor rocker chair and a pedestal style base. The
`
`chair and base can be securely coupled together, one atop the other, by means of a latch and used
`
`as a desk chair that can swivel. Alternatively, the chair can be decoupled from the base and
`
`placed on the floor next to the base. A tabletop which is part of the base can serve as a work
`
`surface or writing table for a person sitting in the floor rocker. The floor rocker has a seat and a
`
`backrest and the rockers are right under the seat.
`
`To infringe claim 9, you must find that the accused chair has these features and
`
`characteristics on their equivalents.
`
`ULoft:
`
`Sauder’s construction of “pedestal” in claim 9 would not be dispositive in
`
`Sauder’s favor. If claim 9 were held valid and infringed, so would claim 1 because claim 9 is a
`
`13
`
`
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2005 p. 13
`
`

`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/15/15 14 of 19. PageID #: 877
`
`dependent claim, depending from claim 1. If claim 1 were held invalid over Yu, claim 9 would
`
`also be held invalid over Yu because Yu discloses a single-post pedestal and a tilt mechanism.
`
`Thus, the meaning of “pedestal” has minimal significance to the case. Sauder’s construction of
`
`“pedestal” might be somewhat conducive to promoting settlement if it would change the
`
`statutory basis for ULoft’s grounds of invalidity, but ULoft maintains that claim 9 would still be
`
`invalid over the cited prior art.
`
`ULoft contends that, if the Court adopts ULoft’s proposed construction of the “assembly”
`
`clause of claim 1, it would likely lead to a finding of noninfringement of claims 1-11, and would
`
`at least be conducive to promoting settlement.
`
`The terms in dispute that are most conducive to promoting settlement are in claim 1, e.g.,
`
`“chair,” “user,” the assembly clause, “accessible,” and the preamble (“A combination of a chair
`
`and stool base portion, said chair comprising”).
`
`
`(D.) ANTICIPATED LENGTH OF TIME NEEDED FOR CLAIMS
`CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`
`
`
`The parties believe the Claims Construction Hearing will require from 2-4 hours.
`
`(E.) WHETHER THE PARTIES WILL CALL WITNESSES AT THE
`CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`
`
`
`The parties will not call witnesses at the claims construction hearing.
`
`(F.) OTHER MATTERS FOR THE COURT
`
`The Court has indicated to both parties that it will address the scheduling of further
`
`matters immediately after the hearing in May 21, 2015.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2005 p. 14
`
`

`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/15/15 15 of 19. PageID #: 878
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/: William F. Bahret
`William F. Bahret (4009-49)*
`bbahret@bahretlaw.com
`Bahret & Associates LLC
`320 North Meridian Street, Suite 510
`Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
`Tel: (317) 423-2300
`Fax: (317) 423-3063
`
`*Admitted pro hac vice
`
`
`
`Philip R. Bautista (0073272)
`pbautista@taftlaw.com
`Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
`200 Public Square, Suite 3500
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2302
`Tel: (216) 241-2838
`Fax: (216) 241-3707
`
`Thomas R. DeVoe (16688-49)*
`tdevoe@taftlaw.com
`Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
`One Indiana Square, Suite 3500
`Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2023
`Tel: (317) 713-3500
`Fax: (317) 713-3699
`
`*Admitted pro hac vice
`
`Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-
`Plaintiff J Squared, Inc. d/b/a University Loft
`Company
`
`Dated: May 15, 2015
`
`
`
`YOUNG BASILE HANLON &
`MACFARLANE PC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Thomas N. Young
`THOMAS N. YOUNG (P22656)
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`Young Basile Hanlon & MacFarlane P.C.
`3001 W. Big Beaver Rd. Suite 624
`Troy, MI 48084
`(248) 649-3333
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2005 p. 15
`
`

`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/15/15 16 of 19. PageID #: 879
`
`Supplement to Part (b)
`
`‘136 PATENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`Claim 1
`
`
`
`Term
`“A combination of a chair and a
`stool base portion, said chair
`comprising”
`
`Sauder’s Construction
`Floor rocker and base
`
`“chair”
`
`“stool base”
`
`“user”
`
`“coupled”
`“manually convertible”
`
`“work surface”
`
`“accessible”
`“assembly”
`
`Floor rocker
`
`A base capable of being coupled to the floor
`rocker and of a height to create a desk chair in
`the “first configuration” and a writing table in
`the “second configuration.”
`Person enjoying a contemporary lifestyle is
`active and can perform functions such as
`writing
`Omnidirectional locked state
`This simply means the change between first
`and second configurations can be achieved
`without the use of tools. “Convertible” is a
`synonym for “reconfigurable.”
`This is a direct reference to the top of the
`“saddle.”
`Creates height limitation for saddle
`Structural unit positioned below seat to
`support seat and provide rockers
`
`“positioned below”
`“base legs structured so as to
`function as rockers”
`
`Located directly under
`Rockers
`
`
`
`
`ULC’s Construction
`No construction necessary. But, if the Court
`chooses to construe it, should construe the claim
`as open-ended, or at least construe “chair
`comprising” as open-ended.
`An article of furniture having a seat and a back
`and usually but not always having legs
`An article of furniture normally having multiple
`legs, not necessarily a columnar type base
`
`A user is one who uses the chair.
`
`Connected but not necessarily locked together.
`Convertible by hand, including conversion by
`hand with the aid of tools
`
`Any surface on which work can be performed.
`
`No construction necessary.
`A collection of manufactured parts fitted
`together, distinct from the lower portion and its
`sitting portion, and from the upper portion
`Positioned at least partially below
`Legs which enable rocking
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2005 p. 16
`
`

`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/15/15 17 of 19. PageID #: 880
`
`Claim 3
`
`
`Entire edge surfaces of saddle
`Any trapezoidal or other geometry or other
`geometry that allows floor rocker to couple to
`saddle in only one rotational orientation
`
`The outer boundary of an object
`The shape of the top or uppermost surface of the
`saddle having a rotationally asymmetric
`geometry, without consideration of any structure
`below the top or uppermost surface.
`
`Claim 6
`
`Any latch that closes to couple and lock floor
`rocker to saddle and opens to allow separation;
`“moving” means “movable”
`
`Claim 7
`
`Latch firmly holds chair to saddle to resist
`movement in any direction but can be released
`
`Claim 9
`
`Read with claim 1 and construed as a whole,
`this is a claim for a pedestal type desk chair
`Columnar support post 334
`“Connector” is any connector that joins
`pedestal and saddle and allows saddle to
`swivel
`
`A latch is a device that holds something in place
`by entering a notch or cavity, e.g., a male part
`that goes into a notch or cavity, or a device with
`a female part that goes onto a male part
`
`Saddle is releasably held by the latch
`
`
`
`A pedestal may have one or more legs
`A connector on the pedestal, whether as part of
`the pedestal or part of the saddle, or common to
`both
`
`
`
`“perimeter edge”
`“rotationally asymmetric
`geometry”
`
`
`
`“latch moving between closed
`and open positions”
`
`
`
`saddle is releasably captured by
`said latch
`
`
`“preamble”
`
`“pedestal” or “pedestal base”
`“the base portion … includes a
`connector that operatively
`connects the saddle with the
`pedestal”
`
`
`
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2005 p. 17
`
`

`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/15/15 18 of 19. PageID #: 881
`
`
`
`“sitting portion”
`“said base legs function as
`rockers”
`
`
`“radiating outwardly”
`
`Claim 12
`
`
`The chair.
`Base legs are rockers
`
`A portion of a chair including a seat
`Legs which enable rocking
`
`Claim 13
`
`Base legs that, as shown and described, radiate
`out from the axis of the base post 334 and are
`more horizontal than vertical
`
`Extending or spreading in an outward direction at
`any angle from a location or point
`
`
`
`
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2005 p. 18
`
`

`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/15/15 19 of 19. PageID #: 882
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`On May 15, the foregoing Loc. P. R. 4.5 Joint Prehearing Statement and Evidence was
`filed via the Court’s electronic filing system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by
`operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the
`Court’s system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/: William F. Bahret
`
`
`
`
`
`One of the Attorneys for
`Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff J Squared,
`Inc. d/b/a University Loft Company
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2005 p. 19