Case: 2:17-cv-01041-ALM-CMV Doc #: 41 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 1 of 50 PAGEID #: 994
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`KIT CHECK, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HEALTH CARE LOGISTICS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:17-cv-01041
`
`Judge Algenon L. Marbley
`
`Magistrate Judge Chelsey M. Vascura
`
`PLAINTIFF KIT CHECK, INC.’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Page 1 of 50
`
`Health Care Logistics, Inc.
`Exhibit 1014
`
`

`

`Case: 2:17-cv-01041-ALM-CMV Doc #: 41 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 2 of 50 PAGEID #: 995
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION ................................................................................................ 2
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ............................................................................................................................... 5
`
`“[T]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and
`customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.”
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal
`quotation marks omitted). The specification “is always highly relevant to the
`claim construction analysis” and serves as “the single best guide to the
`meaning of a disputed term.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d
`1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). However, “[e]ven when the specification
`describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read
`restrictively” as covering only that embodiment, unless there is “a clear
`intention to limit the claim scope using ‘words or expressions of manifest
`exclusion or restriction.’” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898,
`906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
`
`IV.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .................................................................................. 6
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the
`asserted patents would have had (1) a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical
`Engineering or Computer Science and at least 3 years of industrial or
`academic experience in wireless communications technology and computer
`systems, including experience with RFID systems, or, equivalently, (2) a
`Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Science, with a
`master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Science and at least 1
`year of industrial or academic experience in wireless communications
`technology and computer systems, including experience with RFID systems.
`
`V.
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS .................................................................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`The Court should reject HCL’s effort to require that all medicines in a
`kit be “multi-dose.” .................................................................................................................. 7
`
`HCL has offered constructions for three terms in order to require that
`all medicine containers must have multiple doses—as opposed to single-dose
`containers. Nothing in the patents limits the claims to “multi-dose”
`medicines. HCL is simply making up a limitation out of whole cloth in order
`to create a non-infringement defense. HCL’s arguments rest on (a) omitting a
`key part of the claim terms, and (b) effectively changing the language of the
`omitted part of the term.
`
`Page 2 of 50
`
`Health Care Logistics, Inc.
`Exhibit 1014
`
`

`

`Case: 2:17-cv-01041-ALM-CMV Doc #: 41 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 3 of 50 PAGEID #: 996
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“pharmacy item containers are configured to store a plurality
`of pharmacy items” .................................................................................................... 7
`
`“the particular medicinal container is configured to store a
`particular medication of the plurality of medications” ............................ 10
`
`3.
`
`“threshold quantity” ............................................................................................... 11
`
`B.
`
`The Court should reject HCL’s effort to broaden “pharmacy item”
`beyond items that can be found in a pharmacy. ........................................................ 13
`
`HCL’s proposed constructions of “pharmacy item” and “pharmacy kit”
`seek to improperly broaden the claims so that a kit can contain any “medical
`supply” instead of an item from a “pharmacy.” However, the claims plainly
`use the word “pharmacy” to limit the scope of the invention to pharmacy kits
`that contain pharmacy items. HCL’s constructions effectively delete the word
`“pharmacy” from the claims, and are inconsistent with the specification,
`which expressly distinguishes pharmacy kits from other types of medical
`kits.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“pharmacy item” ...................................................................................................... 14
`
`“pharmacy kit” .......................................................................................................... 16
`
`C.
`
`The Court should reject HCL’s effort to re-write the claims so that
`every claim has “segments.” .............................................................................................. 17
`
`The patentee chose to include the term “segment” in some claims but
`not in others. HCL’s proposed constructions for “pharmacy kit template” and
`“template” improperly import the term “segment” into claims that lack that
`term. HCL’s proposed constructions therefore render the term “segment”
`superfluous and improperly limit the scope of the claims in violation of
`fundamental tenets of claim construction.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“pharmacy kit template”....................................................................................... 18
`
`“template” .................................................................................................................. 19
`
`D.
`
`“segment”.................................................................................................................................. 20
`
`The patentee expressly provided a special definition of the term
`“segment” in the specification. When the specification “reveal[s] a special
`definition given to a claim term by the patentee . . . the inventor’s
`lexicography governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319-1320. KCI’s construction
`adopts the specification’s definition. HCL’s construction improperly attempts
`to narrow the scope of the term, in contradiction of the specification’s
`express definition.
`
`iii
`
`Page 3 of 50
`
`Health Care Logistics, Inc.
`Exhibit 1014
`
`

`

`Case: 2:17-cv-01041-ALM-CMV Doc #: 41 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 4 of 50 PAGEID #: 997
`
`E.
`
`“substitute first pharmacy item”/”substitute first medication” .......................... 22
`
`The parties are already construing the term “pharmacy item,” and
`“substitute” should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning.
`Further, HCL’s construction improperly attempts to require that the
`substitute be “identified by the template.” But that requirement is specified
`by a separate limitation in certain claims; for claims that lack this additional
`language, it would be improper to impose it through HCL’s strained
`construction.
`
`F.
`
`“printable portion including an RFID device” or “printable portion” ............... 24
`
`The claims and the specification make clear that the “printable
`portion” of the RFID tags is a portion that is capable of being printed with
`information. HCL’s construction tries to impermissibly limit the claims to an
`example from the specification, i.e., the use of an RFID printer, where no such
`limitation exists in the claims.
`
`VI.
`
`THE ALLEGED MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION LIMITATIONS ..................................................... 26
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 states that “[a]n element in a claim for a
`combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified
`function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof,
`and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure,
`material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”
`“Means-plus-function claiming occurs when a claim term is drafted in a
`manner that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In order to determine whether a claim
`limitation is a means-plus-function limitation, “[t]he standard is whether the
`words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to
`have sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Williamson,
`792 F.3d at 1349.
`
`A.
`
`HCL’s Terms Fail To Properly Identify Both The Alleged Means And
`Function. ................................................................................................................................... 28
`
`Most of the terms identified by HCL are not even arguably in means-
`plus-function form. They fail to identify the alleged means, fail to identify the
`alleged functions, and/or lump together multiple alleged means and
`functions in a single term. HCL improperly invites the Court to rule on a
`number of unidentified permutations. HCL’s lack of clarity in identifying its
`terms is fatal to its argument.
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Page 4 of 50
`
`Health Care Logistics, Inc.
`Exhibit 1014
`
`

`

`Case: 2:17-cv-01041-ALM-CMV Doc #: 41 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 5 of 50 PAGEID #: 998
`
`B.
`
`There Is A Presumption Against Construing The Terms As Means-
`Plus-Function Here Because None Of The Asserted Claims Make Use
`Of The Term “Means.” .......................................................................................................... 30
`
`The Federal Circuit has consistently recognized that the failure to use
`the word “means” in the claims creates a rebuttable presumption that 35
`U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. Here, none of
`the asserted terms include the term “means.” Accordingly, there is a
`presumption that the terms are not means-plus-function limitations.
`
`C.
`
`HCL Cannot Overcome The Presumption Because The Terms Connote
`Structure To A Person Of Ordinary Skill In The Art. ................................................ 30
`
`HCL cannot overcome the presumption that the limitations are not
`means-plus-function limitations. Numerous courts have already looked at
`the same, or similar, terms, finding that such terms are not means-plus-
`function. As explained by KCI’s expert, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand the terms connote sufficiently definite meaning as the
`name for structure, in accordance with their standard dictionary definitions.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Terms At Issue Are Not “Nonce” Words. ................................................... 30
`
`Relevant Case Law Demonstrates That The Terms Connote
`Sufficiently Definite Structure.............................................................................. 31
`
`The Intrinsic Evidence Demonstrates That The Terms Connote
`Sufficiently Definite Structure.............................................................................. 35
`
`The Extrinsic Evidence Demonstrates That The Terms Connote
`Sufficiently Definite Structure.............................................................................. 37
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`Page 5 of 50
`
`Health Care Logistics, Inc.
`Exhibit 1014
`
`

`

`Case: 2:17-cv-01041-ALM-CMV Doc #: 41 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 6 of 50 PAGEID #: 999
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...............................................................................................................27
`
`Advanced Mktg. Sys., LLC v. CVS Pharm., Inc.,
`Nos. 6:15-cv-134-JRG-KNM, 6:15-cv-137-JRG-KNM, 2016 WL 1741396
`(E.D. Tex. May 3, 2016) ..............................................................................................................................32
`
`Affymetrix, Inc. v. Hyseq, Inc.,
`132 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (N.D. Cal. 2001) .................................................................................................34
`
`Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...............................................................................................................33
`
`AquaTex Indus., Inc. v. Techniche Sols.,
`419 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...............................................................................................................37
`
`Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1328 (Fed.Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................................33
`
`Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fitting, Inc.,
`632 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...............................................................................................................18
`
`Collaborative Agreements, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-03853-EMC, 2015 WL 7753293 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015) .......................... 34, 35, 40
`
`Cox Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sprint Commc’n Co. LP,
`838 F.3d 1224 (2016) ................................................................................................................................32
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-05808-HSG, 2015 WL 7770208 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2015) ................... 32, 35, 36, 37
`
`In re Hyatt,
`708 F.2d 712 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Ams. Corp.,
`649 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds by
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...............................................36
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp.,
`379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ...............................................................................................................39
`
`vi
`
`Page 6 of 50
`
`Health Care Logistics, Inc.
`Exhibit 1014
`
`

`

`Case: 2:17-cv-01041-ALM-CMV Doc #: 41 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 7 of 50 PAGEID #: 1000
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................................... 6, 22, 25
`
`Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc.,
`382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004), overruled on other grounds by
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...............................................39
`
`Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`800 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...............................................................................................................28
`
`Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp.,
`514 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...............................................................................................................10
`
`Personal Audio, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 9:09-cv-111,
`2011 WL 11757163 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2011) ...................................................................................33
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................................. 5
`
`Scimed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular,
`242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ...............................................................................................................16
`
`Skky, Inc. v. Mindgeek, S.A.R.L.,
`859 F.3d 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...............................................................................................................30
`
`Smartflash, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`77 F. Supp. 3d 535, 542 (E.D. Tex. 2014) ............................................................................................33
`
`Smartflash LLC, v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:13–CV–447–JRG–KNM, 2015 WL 4208754 (E.D. Tex. July 7, 2015) .................... 31, 34
`
`St. Isidore Research, LLC v. Comerica Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-1390-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 4988246 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2016) ................ 32, 33, 35
`
`Syncpoint Imaging, LLC v. Nintendo of Am. Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-00247-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 55118 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 5, 2016) .................... 32, 33, 39
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) .................................................................................................................................... 6
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am., LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................................. 5
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Page 7 of 50
`
`Health Care Logistics, Inc.
`Exhibit 1014
`
`

`

`Case: 2:17-cv-01041-ALM-CMV Doc #: 41 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 8 of 50 PAGEID #: 1001
`
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................................... passim
`
`Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`891 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...............................................................................................................34
`
`
`
`viii
`
`Page 8 of 50
`
`Health Care Logistics, Inc.
`Exhibit 1014
`
`

`

`Case: 2:17-cv-01041-ALM-CMV Doc #: 41 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 9 of 50 PAGEID #: 1002
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Kit Check, Inc. (“KCI”) is the designer, manufacturer, and seller of an
`
`innovative product that uses RFID technology to manage hospital pharmacy kits.
`
`Defendant Health Care Logistics, Inc. (“HCL”) is the former supplier for the scanning station
`
`portion of KCI’s product. KCI filed this lawsuit after HCL had begun to manufacture and sell
`
`a competitive product that made use of KCI’s patents, trade secrets, and contractually
`
`protected confidential information.
`
`The parties dispute the meaning of ten claim terms found in the seven Asserted
`
`Patents.1 As described in more detail below, KCI favors construing the disputed claim
`
`terms in accordance with their plain and ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art—which is the binding legal standard set forth by the Federal Circuit. HCL, on the
`
`other hand, seeks to use the claim construction process to manufacture non-infringement
`
`defenses by imposing narrowing limitations on the terms that are not supported by the
`
`claim language, specification, or prosecution history.
`
`HCL also attempts to define a large number of terms as means-plus-function
`
`limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. HCL’s proposal should be rejected. Based on the
`
`absence of the word “means” in the claims, there is a presumption that none of the terms
`
`are means-plus-function limitations. HCL cannot overcome this presumption, because the
`
`terms at issue—including “processor,” “information processing system,” “computer-
`
`executable instructions,” “computer-readable medium,” and “computer storage medium”—
`
`
`1 The Asserted Patents are U.S. Pat. No. 8,990,099, U.S. Pat. No. 9,037,479, U.S. Pat. No.
`9,058,412, U.S. Pat. No. 9,058,413, U.S. Patent No. 9,367,665, U.S. Patent No. 9,734,294, and
`U.S. Patent No. 9,805,169.
`
`1
`
`Page 9 of 50
`
`Health Care Logistics, Inc.
`Exhibit 1014
`
`

`

`Case: 2:17-cv-01041-ALM-CMV Doc #: 41 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 10 of 50 PAGEID #: 1003
`
`are well-understood terms connoting structure to a person of ordinary skill rather than
`
`mere “nonce” words that are used simply to define a function. Numerous courts have
`
`already looked at the same, or similar, terms, finding that such terms are not means-plus-
`
`function. The claim language and specification compel the same result here, as do the
`
`declaration of KCI’s expert and technical dictionaries.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
`
`Hospital pharmacies use pharmacy kits to manage groups of pharmacy items. ‘099
`
`patent, 1:12-19.2 Each pharmacy kit provides a group of pharmacy items for a specific
`
`medical procedure or condition, such as items used to treat a patient with a specific type of
`
`stroke or heart condition. Id. Each pharmacy kit is associated with a template that
`
`specifies the particular elements of the kit: e.g., that the kit requires three vials of
`
`adenosine, two containers of albuterol solution, two vials of amiodarone, etc. Id. at 1:20-24.
`
`Pharmacy kits are typically created by loading particular pharmacy items into a container,
`
`such as a box, tray, or canister. Id. at 1:40-45. Pharmacy kits are meant to be
`
`transportable, i.e., they are able to be moved around the hospital, including between the
`
`pharmacy, where the pharmacy kit might be put together or verified, and other locations in
`
`the hospital, such as the operating rooms, where the pharmacy kit is meant to be used. See
`
`id. at 1:16-19.
`
`KCI’s invention uses RFID technology to manage pharmacy kits. Each pharmacy
`
`item in the kit, e.g., ibuprofen, adenosine, etc. is labeled with its own RFID tag. Id. at 3:36-
`
`42. The RFID tag for each pharmacy item stores information for each pharmacy item, e.g.,
`
`
`2 For convenience, all references to the joint specifications of the Asserted Patents are
`made to the specification of the ‘099 patent.
`
`2
`
`Page 10 of 50
`
`Health Care Logistics, Inc.
`Exhibit 1014
`
`

`

`Case: 2:17-cv-01041-ALM-CMV Doc #: 41 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 11 of 50 PAGEID #: 1004
`
`the item’s national drug code or expiration date. Id. at 3:39-50. This allows a hospital
`
`pharmacy to check the contents of a kit. The kit can be placed into an RFID scanning
`
`station, which has an RFID reader that can receive radio waves from the antenna of the
`
`RFID tags. After the RFID tags are read, software can be used to verify the contents of the
`
`pharmacy kit. See, e.g., id. at 4:14-20. One of the benefits of the invention is that it allows
`
`the hospital pharmacy to accurately and efficiently determine the status of the items in the
`
`kit, for instance, by identifying whether any items are missing or expired, or whether any
`
`potential substitute items are available that can be used to restock the kit (e.g., generic
`
`ibuprofen in place of Advil). Id. at 3:28-35.
`
`As explained by the Asserted Patents, the invention can take the form of a number of
`
`different embodiments. However, the basic structure of the invention includes a scanning
`
`station (including an RFID reader and electromagnetic shielding to prevent interference
`
`from outside sources) connected to an information processing system. The Asserted
`
`Patents depict an example information processing system in Figure 4, reproduced below:
`
`3
`
`Page 11 of 50
`
`Health Care Logistics, Inc.
`Exhibit 1014
`
`

`

`Case: 2:17-cv-01041-ALM-CMV Doc #: 41 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 12 of 50 PAGEID #: 1005
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 4, the information processing system 115 may comprise a
`
`computer 405, a server 420 connected to the computer via the internet 415, and a local
`
`area network (LAN) 435, which connects the computer to an RFID Reader. See id. at 10:30-
`
`35. In this embodiment, the server stores information about the pharmacy items 430, as
`
`well as kit templates, i.e., information about which pharmacy items the kit should contain.
`
`As the asserted claims make clear, the information processing system includes one or more
`
`processors that can execute software (i.e., “computer-executable instruction”) that is stored
`
`on a computer-readable medium, e.g., a hard drive. See, e.g., ‘412 patent, claim 1. As noted
`
`above, software run by the processor can verify a pharmacy kit by comparing the results of
`
`a scan of the kit and a template associated with kit. See id. at 4:14-23. The comparison
`
`allows the system to determine if any items are missing from the kits, need to be replaced,
`
`are expired, are expiring soon, etc. See id. at 4:14-23.
`
`4
`
`Page 12 of 50
`
`Health Care Logistics, Inc.
`Exhibit 1014
`
`

`

`Case: 2:17-cv-01041-ALM-CMV Doc #: 41 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 13 of 50 PAGEID #: 1006
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`“[T]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,”
`
`which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
`
`question at the time of the invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). That meaning is determined in the first
`
`instance by examining the “intrinsic evidence of record, i.e., the patent itself, including the
`
`claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution history.” Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “[T]he claims themselves provide
`
`substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1314. “Other claims of the patent in question, both asserted and unasserted, can also be
`
`valuable sources of enlightenment . . . [b]ecause claim terms are normally used consistently
`
`throughout the patent . . . .” Id.
`
`A court should deviate from “ordinary and customary meaning” (as understood by a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art) only in two instances: (1) when the patentee acts as his
`
`own lexicographer in the specification by specifying a different definition; or (2) “when the
`
`patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during
`
`prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am., LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012).
`
`Thus, the specification “is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis”
`
`and serves as “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d
`
`at 1582. Importantly, however, “[e]ven when the specification describes only a single
`
`embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read restrictively” as covering only that
`
`embodiment, unless there is “a clear intention to limit the claim scope using ‘words or
`
`5
`
`Page 13 of 50
`
`Health Care Logistics, Inc.
`Exhibit 1014
`
`

`

`Case: 2:17-cv-01041-ALM-CMV Doc #: 41 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 14 of 50 PAGEID #: 1007
`
`expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.’” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358
`
`F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Indeed, the Federal Circuit has deemed
`
`“reading a limitation from the written description into the claims,” as “one of the cardinal
`
`sins of patent law.” See Philips, 415 F.3d at 1320.
`
`In some cases, “the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s intrinsic
`
`evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the
`
`background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time
`
`period.” Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015). For example,
`
`technical dictionaries can assist the court in determining the meaning of a term to a skilled
`
`artisan, because such dictionaries “endeavor to collect the accepted meanings of terms
`
`used in various fields of science and technology.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. Additionally,
`
`expert testimony can be helpful “to ensure that the court’s understanding of the technical
`
`aspects of the patent is consistent with that of a person of skill in the art, or to establish
`
`that a particular term in the patent or the prior art has a particular meaning in the
`
`pertinent field. “ Id.
`
`IV.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`As described by KCI’s expert, Jeffrey Fischer, a person of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time of the invention of the asserted patents would have had (1) a Bachelor’s Degree in
`
`Electrical Engineering or Computer Science and at least 3 years of industrial or academic
`
`experience in wireless communications technology and computer systems, including
`
`experience with RFID systems, or, equivalently, (2) a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering or Computer Science, with a master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or
`
`Computer Science and at least 1 year of industrial or academic experience in wireless
`
`6
`
`Page 14 of 50
`
`Health Care Logistics, Inc.
`Exhibit 1014
`
`

`

`Case: 2:17-cv-01041-ALM-CMV Doc #: 41 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 15 of 50 PAGEID #: 1008
`
`communications technology and computer systems, including experience with RFID
`
`systems. Fischer Decl. at ¶ 22.
`
`V.
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS3
`
`A.
`
`The Court should reject HCL’s effort to require that all medicines in a kit
`be “multi-dose.”
`
`HCL has offered constructions for three different terms in order to achieve a single
`
`goal: to require that all medicine containers must have multiple doses—as opposed to
`
`single-dose containers. Nothing in the patents limits the claims to “multi-dose” medicines.
`
`That term is not used in the claims or anywhere else in the patents. Indeed, the concept of
`
`multi-dose medicines is not even explicitly discussed. And the specification itself shows
`
`examples of a single-dose medicine. HCL is simply making up a limitation out of whole
`
`cloth in order to manufacture a non-infringement defense.
`
`1.
`
`“pharmacy item containers are configured to store a plurality of
`pharmacy items”
`
`KCI’s Construction
`
`HCL’s Construction
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning, i.e.,
`“containers that each store a particular
`pharmacy item”
`
`This term is undefined. HCL believes that
`this term should be given its plain and
`ordinary meaning:
`
` A
`
` multi-dose pharmacy item. For
`example, a bottle containing more than
`one pharmaceutical pill.
`
`For this term, HCL seeks to require that each pharmacy item container have
`
`multiple doses, instead of being, for example, a single-dose container. Nothing in the claim
`
`language or specification requires multiple doses. HCL’s argument rests on (a) omitting a
`
`
`
`3 Exhibit 1 has been provided to identify in which of the asserted claims the disputed claim
`terms can be found.
`
`7
`
`Page 15 of 50
`
`Health Care Logistics, Inc.
`Exhibit 1014
`
`

`

`Case: 2:17-cv-01041-ALM-CMV Doc #: 41 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 16 of 50 PAGEID #: 1009
`
`key part of the claim term; and (b) effectively changing the language of the omitted part of
`
`the term. HCL’s construction amounts to a transparent attempt to avoid infringement. It
`
`should be rejected.
`
`The claim term (underlined) appears in context in a representative claim as follows:
`
`receive tag information of a plurality of RFID tags coupled to a
`plurality of pharmacy item containers . . .
`
`
`
`wherein the plurality of pharmacy item containers are
`configured to store a plurality of pharmacy items,
`
`
`wherein a particular RFID tag of the plurality of RFID tags is
`coupled to a particular pharmacy item container of the
`plurality of pharmacy item containers and the
`particular pharmacy item container is configured to
`store a particular pharmacy item of the plurality of
`pharmacy items
`
`‘412 patent, claim 1.
`
`HCL has cropped the relevant claim language in a misleading fashion to support its
`
`“multi-dose” construction. Specifically, the full language of the phrase at issue is “the
`
`plurality of pharmacy item containers are configured to store a plurality of pharmacy
`
`items.” See, e.g., ‘412 patent, claim 1 (emphasis added). HCL has omitted “the plurality of”
`
`language from its term. HCL then attempts to rewrite the term by replacing the word
`
`“plurality” with “each,” i.e., “each of the pharmacy item containers are configured to store a
`
`plurality of pharmacy items.” But that is not how the claims are written; the claims state
`
`that “the plurality of pharmacy item containers are configured to store a plurality of
`
`pharmacy items.” See, e.g., ‘412 patent, claim 1.
`
`As written, there is a clear parallel between the “plurality of pharmacy item
`
`containers” in the first part of the phrase and the “plurality of pharmacy items” in the
`
`second part of the phrase. There are multiple containers that store multiple pharmacy
`
`8
`
`Page 16 of 50
`
`Health Care Logistics, Inc.
`Exhibit 1014
`
`

`

`Case: 2:17-cv-01041-ALM-CMV Doc #: 41 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 17 of 50 PAGEID #: 1010
`
`items, which allows the possibility that some of the containers can contain a single
`
`pharmacy item rather than a “multi-dose” pharmacy item. See In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712,
`
`714 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“A claim must be read in accordance with the