Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 63 Filed: 06/09/15 1 of 4. PageID #: 892
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Company,
`
`Case No. 3:14 CV 962
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`MARKMAN ORDER
`
`-vs-
`
`JUDGE JACK ZOUHARY
`
`J Squared, Inc.
`d/b/a University Loft Company,
`
`Defendant.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This matter is before this Court for construction of certain terms found in Claim 1 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,585,136 (the “136 Patent”) in accordance with Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`
`517 U.S. 370, 390–91 (1996). The parties filed briefs (Docs. 52–53 & 59) and this Court held a
`
`record hearing on May 21, 2015.
`
`Plaintiff Sauder Manufacturing Company (“Sauder”) brought this action against Defendant
`
`J Squared, Inc., d/b/a University Loft Company (“J Squared”) asserting, among other things,
`
`infringement of the 136 Patent. The patent involves a convertible chair / base combination with two
`
`configurations: a chair detachably connected to a base; a chair disconnected from the base with the
`
`chair sitting on the floor, functioning as a rocker, and the base becoming a table (Doc. 53 at 2).
`
`Prior to the hearing, the parties reached agreement on several of the terms that did not require
`
`court construction, and further agreed that this Court would first address three constructions from
`
`Claim 1, those being the meaning of “coupled,” “assembly” and “rockers” (Doc. 59 at 16). Each will
`
`be addressed below.
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2001 p. 1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Company,
`
`Case No. 3:14 CV 962
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`MARKMAN ORDER
`
`-vs-
`
`JUDGE JACK ZOUHARY
`
`J Squared, Inc.
`d/b/a University Loft Company,
`
`Defendant.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This matter is before this Court for construction of certain terms found in Claim 1 of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,585,136 (the “136 Patent”) in accordance with Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`
`517 U.S. 370, 390–91 (1996). The parties filed briefs (Docs. 52–53 & 59) and this Court held a
`
`record hearing on May 21, 2015.
`
`Plaintiff Sauder Manufacturing Company (“Sauder”) brought this action against Defendant
`
`J Squared, Inc., d/b/a University Loft Company (“J Squared”) asserting, among other things,
`
`infringement of the 136 Patent. The patent involves a convertible chair / base combination with two
`
`configurations: a chair detachably connected to a base; a chair disconnected from the base with the
`
`chair sitting on the floor, functioning as a rocker, and the base becoming a table (Doc. 53 at 2).
`
`Prior to the hearing, the parties reached agreement on several of the terms that did not require
`
`court construction, and further agreed that this Court would first address three constructions from
`
`Claim 1, those being the meaning of “coupled,” “assembly” and “rockers” (Doc. 59 at 16). Each will
`
`be addressed below.
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2001 p. 1
`
`
`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 63 Filed: 06/09/15 2 of 4. PageID #: 893
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`It is the duty of this Court, not a jury, to construe a patent claim. Markman, 517 U.S. at 391.
`
`Language in a particular claim must be construed in the context of both the individual claim and the
`
`entire patent, including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (en banc). The specification should be read in light of the prosecution history which is the
`
`primary basis for construing a patent claim. Id. at 1350. Courts may also rely on extrinsic evidence
`
`-- that is, evidence other than the patent and its prosecution history -- but that evidence is secondary
`
`to the intrinsic evidence. Id. at 1317.
`
`The parties agree that the patent should be construed based on the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning of the words, giving those words meaning in light of the patent specification as understood
`
`by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the patent application was filed. Dictionary definitions
`
`are extrinsic evidence and unnecessary if the court can glean the meaning of the language from the
`
`claim and the patent history. Sometimes, the ordinary and customary meaning of claim language to
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art may be identical to the meaning that language would have to a lay
`
`person not skilled in the art. Id. 1312–14.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Coupled
`
`Sauder:
`J Squared:
`
`Omnidirectional locked state.
`Connected but not necessarily locked together.
`
`The essence of this dispute is whether “coupled” means the upper portion and the lower
`
`portion are “locked.” The word coupled appears twelve times in the patent and there is no dispute that
`
`its definition means joined by means of a claw and latch. This Court looks to the specification in the
`
`first instance and believes there is no ambiguity and the term is clear in the context of this patent.
`
`2
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2001 p. 2
`
`
`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 63 Filed: 06/09/15 3 of 4. PageID #: 894
`
`Column 9 of the 136 Patent references a “secure engagement” and “coupling” to become a single unit
`
`(TR 12). In other words, once coupled, the unit resists separation and movement. The patent
`
`specification refers to the chair and base as “latched together” (TR 21–22). The meaning is clear from
`
`the specification. This Court takes a middle approach to the opposing proposals and defines
`
`“coupled” as “securely joined.”
`
`Assembly
`
`Sauder:
`
`J Squared:
`
`Structural unit positioned below seat to support seat and provide
`rockers.
`A collection of manufactured parts fitted together, distinct from the
`lower portion and its sitting portion, and from the upper portion.
`
`The assembly is shown in Figure 17. It is used as a noun and refers to a structural unit. Here,
`
`that unit is molded plastic and is located under the chair. The assembly is made up of different parts
`
`which are pre-bolted into a single unit (TR 33–34).
`
`Defendant argues that assembly could mean more than one part (TR 35–36). But it is clear
`
`to this Court from the use of the word in the patent specification that we are not talking about a
`
`number of different parts; rather, we are talking about a single molded plastic assembly -- a “structural
`
`unit” (TR 40). This Court adopts Plaintiff’s definition of assembly -- straight-forward and clear.
`
`Base legs structured so as to function as rockers
`
`Sauder:
`J Squared:
`
`Rockers.
`Legs which enable rocking.
`
`At the hearing, there was discussion about Claims 1 and 4 (TR 42–45), and requirements from
`
`the Examiner to include rockers in both of those claims. Counsel agree that this phrase is a structural
`
`recitation and this Court again finds no ambiguity. We are talking about rockers and not traditional
`
`legs. The bottom portion rocks. The common sense definition of rockers is a curved piece of wood
`
`3
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2001 p. 3
`
`
`
`Case: 3:14-cv-00962-JZ Doc #: 63 Filed: 06/09/15 4 of 4. PageID #: 895
`
`that makes a chair rock; distinguishable from a chair that might “rock no matter how slightly” or “tilt”
`
`(TR 47). This Court adopts Plaintiff’s proposed meaning.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Counsel agree that these three phrases were the critical definitions for this Court to address.
`
`This ruling may avoid the need for further Markman rulings. By a separate Order filed concurrently,
`
`an amended case schedule is in place.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
` s/ Jack Zouhary
`JACK ZOUHARY
`U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`June 9, 2015
`
`4
`
`Sauder Manufacturing Co., Ex. 2001 p. 4
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
