Case 2:12-cv-01545-RCJ-CWH Document 140 Filed 03/27/15 Page 1 of 86
`
`
`
`TOUTON LAW, LLC
`Todd M. Touton (Nevada Bar No. 1744)
`9909 Cozy Glen
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89117
`Telephone: 702-286-8353
`toddtouton@gmail.com
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`Robert G. Abrams (pro hac vice)
`Gregory J. Commins, Jr. (pro hac vice)
`1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 1100
`Washington, DC 20036
`rabrams@bakerlaw.com
`gcommins@bakerlaw.com
`(202) 861-1500
`
`Attorneys for Caterpillar Inc., Caterpillar
`Global Mining LLC, and Cashman Equipment
`Company
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GORDON SILVER
`John L. Krieger (Nevada Bar No. 6023)
`Joel Z. Schwarz (Nevada Bar No. 9181)
`3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, 9th Fl.
`Las Vegas, NV 89169-0961
`jkrieger@gordonsilver.com
`jschwarz@gordonsilver.com
`(702) 796-5555
`
`Attorneys for Raptor Mining Products
`(USA) Inc. and Raptor Mining Products
`Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`ESCO CORPORATION AND ESCO
`CANADA, LTD,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASHMAN EQUIPMENT COMPANY,
`CATERPILLAR GLOBAL MINING LLC,
`CATERPILLAR INC., RAPTOR MINING
`PRODUCTS (USA) INC., and RAPTOR
`MINING PRODUCTS INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Case No.: 2:12-cv-01545-RCJ-PAL
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 86
`
`CATERPILLAR EXHIBIT 1013
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-01545-RCJ-CWH Document 140 Filed 03/27/15 Page 2 of 86
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................................... 1
`
`A. The Specification Is the First Place the Court Should Look ................................................ 2
`
`B. Importance of Prosecution History to Claim Construction .................................................. 2
`
`C. “Plain and Ordinary Meaning” Often Must Be Determined by the Court ........................... 4
`
`D. Usefulness of Extrinsic Evidence ......................................................................................... 5
`
`E. Indefiniteness Should Be Determined During Claim Construction ...................................... 5
`
`
`
`II. BACKGROUND OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT AND ACCUSED PRODUCTS .................. 7
`
`
`
`II. CONSTRUCTION OF ESCO’S PATENTS-IN-SUIT ............................................................ 14
`
`A. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,640,684 (“THE ’684 PATENT”) .................................................... 14
`
`1 Pin .............................................................................................................................. 14
`
`2. Opening Being Through the Retainer ......................................................................... 17
`
`3. Positioned Within the Opening in the Retainer .......................................................... 21
`
`B. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,178,274 (“THE ’274 PATENT”) .................................................... 23
`
`1. Lock ............................................................................................................................ 24
`
`2. Body ............................................................................................................................ 25
`
`3. Shank .......................................................................................................................... 29
`
`4. Non-circular cross sectional configuration ................................................................. 31
`
`5. Resilient Part ............................................................................................................... 35
`
`C. U.S. PATENT NO. RE 43,693 (“THE ’693 PATENT”) ................................................... 37
`
`1. Lock ............................................................................................................................ 38
`
`2. Opening Defining a Passage ....................................................................................... 39
`
`3. Non-Circular ............................................................................................................... 43
`
`4. Locking Member ........................................................................................................ 46
`
`5. Peripheral Outline ....................................................................................................... 48
`
`D. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,122,621 (“THE ’621 PATENT”) AND U.S. PATENT
`NO.8,689,472 (“THE ’472 PATENT”) ............................................................................ 51
`
`1. Lock ............................................................................................................................ 52
`
`2. Wherein the body is moved about an axis less than a single rotation as the
`body is adjusted between the pre-established hold position and the pre-
`established release position ....................................................................................... 58
`
`3. Hold Position .............................................................................................................. 59
`
`4. Integrally Connected / Integrally Secured / Integral Component / Integral Unit /
`Single Integral Component ........................................................................................ 62
`
`5. Alternatively Secured ................................................................................................. 66
`
`i
`
`Page 2 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-01545-RCJ-CWH Document 140 Filed 03/27/15 Page 3 of 86
`
`
`E. CONSTRUCTION OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,241,765 (“THE ’765 PATENT”) .............. 67
`
`1. This Is a Means-Plus-Function Limitation ................................................................. 68
`
`2. If It Is Not a Means-Plus-Function Limitation, Claim 21 Is Indefinite ...................... 70
`
`
`
`V. CONSTRUCTION OF CATERPILLAR AND CGM PATENTS-IN-SUIT ......................... 72
`
`A. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,762,015 (“THE ’015 PATENT”) .................................................... 72
`
`1. Retainer Bushing Being Made of Plastic .................................................................... 72
`
`2. Retainer Bushing ........................................................................................................ 74
`
`3. Lock ............................................................................................................................ 75
`
`B. U.S. PATENT NO. 6,565,146 (“THE ’146 PATENT”) .................................................... 76
`
`
`
`V. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 77
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Page 3 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-01545-RCJ-CWH Document 140 Filed 03/27/15 Page 4 of 86
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`01 Communique Lab., Inc. v. LogMeIn, Inc.,
` 687 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 27
`
`ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp.,
` 732 F.2d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .................................................................................................. 37
`
`AIA Engineering Ltd. v. Magotteaux Intern. S/A,
` 657 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 73
`
`Am. Piledriving Equip., Inc. v. Geoquip, Inc.,
` 637 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 30
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
` 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................................. 68
`
`Astrazeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc.,
` 633 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................. 73
`
`Athletic Alternatives, Inc. v. Prince Mfg., Inc.,
` 73 F.3d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .................................................................................................... 71
`
`Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc.,
` 198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................... 2
`
`Cat Tech LLC v. Tube-Master, Inc.,
` 528 F.3d 871 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................ 16, 49, 67
`
`Cohesive Techs. Inc. v. Waters Corp.,
` 543 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. 72
`
`Combined Sys., Inc. v. Defense Tech. Corp. of Am.,
` 350 F.3d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................. 29
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc.,
` 417 F.3d 1342 (Fed .Cir. 2005) .............................................................................................. 6, 71
`
`Edwards LifeSciences LLC v. Cook Inc.,
` 582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................ 15, 21
`
`Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Eng’g Corp.,
` 216 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................. 39
`
`Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
` 435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................... 6
`
`ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.,
` 700 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................ 6, 71
`
`Exxon Research & Eng’g Co. v. United States,
` 265 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`iii
`
`Page 4 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-01545-RCJ-CWH Document 140 Filed 03/27/15 Page 5 of 86
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Fontijn v. Okamoto,
` 518 F.2d 610 (C.C.P.A. 1975) ................................................................................................... 42
`
`Generation II Orthotics Inc. v. Med. Tech. Inc.,
` 263 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 73
`
`Geneva Pharm., Inc. v. Glaxosmithkline PLC,
` 349 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................... 7
`
`Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp.,
` 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................. 58
`
`Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.,
` 91 F.3d 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................... 69
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
` 514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................. 7, 71
`
`Helmsdefer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc.,
` 527 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................. 77
`
`Holland Furniture Co. v. Perkins Glue Co.,
` 277 U.S. 245 (1928) ................................................................................................................... 25
`
`Honeywell v. United States,
` 609 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................ 5, 7
`
`ICU Med. Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., Inc.,
` 558 F.3d. 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................... 58, 62
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation,
` 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 52
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
` 381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................... 2
`
`Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Americas Corp.,
` 649 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................ 68, 69
`
`K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A.,
` 191 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................. 67
`
`Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc.,
` 939 F.2d 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .................................................................................................. 69
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
` 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ....................................... 2, 5
`
`Mas–Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc.,
` 156 F.3d 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................. 69
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc.,
` 357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`iv
`
`Page 5 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-01545-RCJ-CWH Document 140 Filed 03/27/15 Page 6 of 86
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Mitchell v. Tilghman,
` 86 U.S. (19 Wall.) 287 (1873) ................................................................................................... 36
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
` 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ..................................................................................................... 6, 66, 68
`
`Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp.,
` 432 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................... 4
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.,
` 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................. 38
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
` 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................... 5
`
`On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus., Inc.,
` 442 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................. 31
`
`Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc.,
` 498 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .............................................................................................. 4, 34
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
` 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
` 182 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................... 5
`
`Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp.,
` 190 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................. 36
`
`Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.,
` 659 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................. 76
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,
` 242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................. 25
`
`Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech, Inc.,
` 927 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1991) .................................................................................................. 39
`
`Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc.,
` 413 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................................................. 3, 43
`
`Smith v. Snow,
` 294 U.S. 1 (1935) ....................................................................................................................... 68
`
`Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co.,
` 54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`Spectrum Int’l v. Sterlite Corp.,
` 164 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .............................................................................................. 3, 59
`
`Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
` 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) ................................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`v
`
`Page 6 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-01545-RCJ-CWH Document 140 Filed 03/27/15 Page 7 of 86
`
`
`Trading Techs. Intern., Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.,
` 595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................. 3, 15, 21, 60
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
` 103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................. 76
`
`Unique Coupons, Inc. v. Northfield Corp.,
` 12 Fed. App’x 928 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................................................................................... 52
`
`Verizon Services Corp. v. Vonage Holding Corp.,
` 503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................ 3, 21, 30
`
`Vitrionics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
` 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .............................................................................................. 18, 42
`
`Wang Labs, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc.,
` 197 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................... 52, 58, 62
`
`Watts v. XL Sys., Inc.,
` 232 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................... 68
`
`Young v. Lumenis, Inc.,
` 492 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`vi
`
`Page 7 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-01545-RCJ-CWH Document 140 Filed 03/27/15 Page 8 of 86
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Defendants Caterpillar Global Mining LLC (“CGM”) Caterpillar Inc. (“Caterpillar”),
`
`Cashman Equipment Company (“Cashman”), Raptor Mining Products (USA) Inc., and Raptor
`
`Mining Products Inc. (together, “Raptor” and collectively with CGM, Caterpillar, and Cashman,
`
`the “Defendants”) submit this Opening Claim Construction Brief pursuant to Order for Claim
`
`Construction Briefing [Dkt. No. 132].
`
`Based on the parties’ Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement for the
`
`Consolidated Cases [Dkt. No. 135] filed on March 18, 2015 and subsequent correspondence
`
`between the parties, there are 29 terms proposed to be construed by the Court during this claim
`
`construction process. However, two of the four patents-in-suit share specifications with each
`
`other; therefore, the construction of terms identified in each of those patents overlap. Likewise, a
`
`number of terms that Defendants have asked the Court to construe are related and, therefore,
`
`Defendants have asked for the limitations to be construed identically or nearly identically.
`
`Overall, Defendants request that the Court provide 18 constructions in the 8 patents-in-suit.
`
`
`
`Defendants submit this brief in support of their proposed constructions of terms in the
`
`following patents-in-suit: United States Patent Nos. 5,241,765 (’765 Patent); 7,178,274 (’274
`
`Patent); 7,640,684 (’684 Patent); 8,122,621 (’621 Patent); RE43,693 (’693 Patent); 8,689,472
`
`(’472 Patent); and 7,762,015 (’015 Patent). CGM does not believe that any terms need to be
`
`construed for U.S. Patent No. 6,565,146 and instead all terms should be afforded their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning in light of the specification. CGM reserves the right to rebut any positions to
`
`the contrary asserted by Plaintiffs ESCO Corporation and ESCO Canada, Ltd. (collectively,
`
`“ESCO”) in their opening brief.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`
`“It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to
`
`which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005). “Because the meaning of a claim term as understood by persons of skill in the
`
`art is often not immediately apparent,” the Court must construe those terms to assist the fact-
`
`finder in making its determination. Id. at 1314. In conducting its analysis, “the court looks to
`
`1
`
`Page 8 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-01545-RCJ-CWH Document 140 Filed 03/27/15 Page 9 of 86
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`‘those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would have
`
`understood disputed claim language to mean.’” Id. (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari
`
`Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). That includes “the words of
`
`the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic
`
`evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of
`
`the art.” Id. “Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and
`
`confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to
`
`envelop with the claim. The construction that [1] stays true to the claim language and [2] most
`
`naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct
`
`construction.” Id. at 1316 (internal citations omitted).
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The Specification Is the First Place the Court Should Look
`
`The claims do not stand alone, as they “must be read in view of the specification, of which
`
`they are a part.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52
`
`F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996)). The specification consists
`
`of not only the written description, but also the claims themselves. Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage
`
`Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “[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.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Importance of Prosecution History to Claim Construction
`
`After reading the claims in view of the specification, the Court is instructed to consider
`
`the prosecution history. The prosecution history “can often inform the meaning of the claim
`
`language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor
`
`limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it
`
`otherwise should be.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. Because the file history, however, “represents
`
`an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the applicant,” it may lack the clarity of the
`
`specification. Id. at 1316. Nevertheless, the prosecution history is intrinsic evidence that is
`
`relevant to the determination of how the inventor understood the invention and whether the
`
`2
`
`Page 9 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-01545-RCJ-CWH Document 140 Filed 03/27/15 Page 10 of 86
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`inventor limited the invention during prosecution by narrowing the scope of the claims. Id.; see
`
`also Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that
`
`“a patentee’s statements during prosecution, whether relied on by the examiner or not, are
`
`relevant to claim interpretation”).
`
`The intrinsic evidence (i.e., the claims, specification, and prosecution history) is
`
`particularly instructive when the inventor repeatedly uses phrases such as “the present invention”
`
`and “this invention” in describing the features of his invention, thereby indicating the inventor’s
`
`clear intent regarding the invention’s limited scope. See, e.g., Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage
`
`Holding Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“When a patentee thus describes the
`
`features of the ‘present invention’ as a whole, this description limits the scope of the invention.”).
`
`When an inventor “use[s] [] the term ‘the present invention’ rather than ‘a preferred embodiment’
`
`or just ‘an embodiment,’ he makes clear that the particular feature being referenced represents a
`
`limitation on claim scope.” Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1353-54
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`The doctrine of “prosecution history disclaimer” holds that an applicant’s arguments in
`
`the prosecution history that objectively convey to one of skill in the art that certain subject matter
`
`is not included within the claimed invention act to restrict the scope of those claims. Thus,
`
`“[w]here an applicant argues that a claim possesses a feature in order to overcome a prior art
`
`rejection, the argument may serve to narrow the scope of otherwise broad claim language.”
`
`Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In particular, “by
`
`distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, an applicant is indicating what the claims
`
`do not cover. Therefore, a patentee, after relinquishing subject matter to distinguish a prior art
`
`reference asserted by the PTO during prosecution, cannot during subsequent litigation escape
`
`[this] reliance.” Spectrum Int’l v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d 1372, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`
`(internal citations omitted).
`
`A court construing patent claims may also rely on the inventor’s statements to the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO” or “PTO”) during prosecution that “demonstrat[e]
`
`3
`
`Page 10 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-01545-RCJ-CWH Document 140 Filed 03/27/15 Page 11 of 86
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the
`
`course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.” Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1317; see also Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007) (“[T]o attribute to the claims a meaning broader than any indicated in the patents and their
`
`prosecution history would be to ignore the totality of the facts of the case and exalt slogans over
`
`real meaning.”). The Federal Circuit has repeatedly explained that claim language cannot, like a
`
`“nose of wax,” be twisted one way to obtain or preserve the claim and another way to prove
`
`infringement. See, e.g., Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1578 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1995). Consequently, the scope of surrender during prosecution is not limited to what is
`
`absolutely necessary to avoid a prior art reference. Patentees making limiting statements to secure
`
`claim allowance cannot subsequently argue that claims should be interpreted as if they had
`
`surrendered only what they had to. Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 432 F.3d 1356, 1361-62 (Fed.
`
`13
`
`Cir. 2005).
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`C.
`
`“Plain and Ordinary Meaning” Often Must Be Determined by the Court
`
`Plaintiffs contend that no claim construction is necessary for almost all the disputed terms
`
`in their patents because the “plain and ordinary meaning” applies. See Amended Joint Claim
`
`Construction and Prehearing Statement for the Consolidated Cases [Dkt. No. 135]. But such a
`
`notion ignores the Federal Circuit’s explicit guidance that claim construction of a term’s ordinary
`
`meaning is often necessary even if the “claim construction . . . involves little more than the
`
`application of widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Phillips at 1314.
`
`“[D]etermining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim requires examination of terms...
`
`[b]ecause the meaning of a claim term as understood by persons of skill in the art is often not
`
`immediately apparent.” Id. Accordingly, the Court is instructed to look to those sources available
`
`to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim
`
`language to mean.” Id. (internal citations omitted). These sources include the claims themselves,
`
`the patent specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence. Id. Here, it is improper to
`
`suggest, as ESCO has done, that the industry specific terms used in the claims of their patents do
`
`4
`
`Page 11 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-01545-RCJ-CWH Document 140 Filed 03/27/15 Page 12 of 86
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`not require construction. The parties dispute their meaning, and thus it cannot be said that no
`
`construction is warranted.
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Usefulness of Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Courts may also utilize extrinsic evidence, which “consists of all evidence external to the
`
`patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned
`
`treatises,” to help determine the meaning of disputed claim terms. Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
`
`Extrinsic evidence, however, is generally considered less helpful in determining the legal
`
`meaning of claim terms than intrinsic evidence. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Even with these cautionary guidelines firmly established, courts must sometimes use
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`trustworthy extrinsic evidence to aid them in their construction. Looking beyond a patent’s
`
`intrinsic evidence to consult extrinsic evidence may help a district court better understand, “for
`
`example, the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant
`
`time period.” Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015). Particularly, in
`
`regards to expert testimony, “it is entirely appropriate, perhaps even preferable, for a court to
`
`consult trustworthy extrinsic evidence to ensure that the claim construction it is tending to from
`
`the patent file is not inconsistent with clearly expressed, plainly apposite, and widely held
`
`understandings in the pertinent technical field,” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182
`
`F.3d 1298, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1999), as long as it does not “vary the plain language of the patent
`
`document.” Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see also
`
`Teva Pharms. USA., 135 S. Ct. at 841 (noting that expert testimony may assist the Court in
`
`ascertaining whether “a certain term of art had a particular meaning to a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art at the time of the invention.”). Extrinsic evidence, therefore, can be helpful in providing
`
`context for the disputed term and the technology at issue. Markman, 52 F.3d at 986.
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Indefiniteness Should Be Determined During Claim Construction
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 2, patent claims must distinctly point out the claimed invention.
`
`A claim fails to satisfy this statutory requirement and is thus invalid for indefiniteness if, when
`
`5
`
`Page 12 of 86
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-cv-01545-RCJ-CWH Document 140 Filed 03/27/15 Page 13 of 86
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, it “fail[s] to inform, with reasonable
`
`certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`
`Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014).