Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 95 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:1121
`
`
`
`
`Kumar Maheshwari (SBN 245,010)
`Email: kumar@maheshlaw.com
`Mahesh Law Group, P.C.
`7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 800
`Irvine, CA 92618
`Tel: 530.400.9246
`
`J. Curtis Edmondson (SBN 236,105)
`E-mail: jcedmondson@edmolaw.com
`Edmondson IP Law
`3699 NE John Olsen Avenue
`Hillsboro, OR 97124
`Tel: 503.336.3769
`
`Stephen M. Lobbin (SBN 181,195)
`E-mail: sml@smlavvocati.com
`SML Avvocati P.C.
`888 Prospect Street, Suite 200
`La Jolla, CA 92037
`Tel: 949.636.1391
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`CARAVAN CANOPY INT’L, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`COSTCO WHOLESALE
`CORPORATION, LOWE’S HOME
`CENTERS, LLC, Z-SHADE CO. LTD.,
`WALMART INC., SHELTERLOGIC
`CORP., et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-01072-AG-ADS
` (Lead Case)
`Case No. 5:19-cv-01224-AG-ADS
`Case No. 2:19-cv-06224-AG-ADS
`Case No. 2:19-cv-06952-AG-ADS
`Case No. 2:19-cv-06978-AG-ADS
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to SPR 3.5, as follows is the Opening Claim Construction Brief
`of Plaintiff Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc. (“CCI”) concerning the patent-in-suit,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 1 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 95 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:1122
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,944,040 issued on August 31, 1999 and entitled “Collapsible
`Tent Frame” (“the ‘040 patent”).1
`Introduction and Summary
`As reflected in the parties’ “Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`Statement” (Dkt. # 90), Plaintiff’s straightforward position on claim construction
`is as follows. First, the prior 2002 analysis and construction from this very Court
`(Judge Stephen V. Wilson) should control for the claim term “center pole.” See
`Ex. B (April 16, 2002 Order and related briefing). Second, the remaining terms
`raised by Defendants need no special construction at all; rather, these terms
`should retain the “plain and ordinary meaning” of the language used. See Dkt. #
`90-1 at 2-6. In view of the straightforward claim language, patent specification
`and prosecution history, there is no reasonable ambiguity requiring any
`specialized re-definition or “construction” of these other claim terms. As such,
`the terms and phrases used in the claims—themselves, as written and phrased—
`are sufficient to define the “metes and bounds” of the asserted patent rights.2
`The Invention of the ‘040 Patent-in-Suit
`The ‘040 patent (entitled “Collapsible Tent Frame”) issued on August 31,
`1999 on an application filed on May 21, 1998.3 This was a long time ago, which
`has special importance to the issue of claim construction, as follows: “The proper
`
`
`
`
`1 The ‘040 patent-in-suit is submitted as Exhibit A hereto in searchable PDF
`format. Citations to the patent are to the column and line number(s), for
`example, “Patent at column:line(s).”
`
` 2
`
` While Plaintiff does not believe any construction beyond “plain and ordinary
`meaning” is necessary, it may propose alternative constructions (with supporting
`evidence) once Defendants fully explain the basis for their proposals.
`
` 3
`
` The application claims priority from a foreign patent application filed in 1997.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 2 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 95 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:1123
`
`
`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
`
`claim construction 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, i.e., as of the
`effective filing date of the patent application.’” Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq
`Computer Corp., 812 F.3d 1313, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added)
`(quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)).
`Here, the time of the invention was at least as long ago as 1997. See supra note
`3. This fact should underscore the need to refrain from improper “hindsight;”
`instead, the claims must be understood as they would have been understood over
`23 years ago by “a person of ordinary skill in the art” at that time.
`
`The ‘040 patent claims the now-familiar “collapsible tent frame” structure
`used in millions of “pop-up” or “instant” tents and canopies seen in backyards
`and at tailgate parties, farmers’ markets, street fairs and the like, all over America
`(at least before the present public health crisis). See Dkt. # 1-1 at 2-8. The ‘040
`patent has one independent claim (Claim 1), which includes just a few unique
`mechanical elements (highlighted and/or underlined are Defendants’ proposed
`terms for construction):
`1. A collapsible tent frame, comprising:
`a center pole constructed for stretching and sustaining a
`tent’s roof when a tent is pitched with the tent frame;
`a plurality of side poles coupled to each other through a
`plurality of scissor-type ribs, with upper ends of said ribs being
`hinged to connectors provided at top ends of said side poles and
`lower ends of said ribs being hinged to sliders movably fitted over
`said side poles; and
`plurality of center pole ribs coupling said center pole to said
`connectors of the side poles, said center pole ribs individually
`comprising two rib members coupled to each other through a hinge
`joint and being hinged to the slider of an associated side pole
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 3 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 95 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:1124
`
`
`through a support link, thus being collapsible at the hinge joint in
`accordance with a sliding motion of said slider along the side pole.
`See Patent at 4:27-42 (emphasis added).
`The patent specification describes exemplary embodiments of the claimed
`inventions in a plain, ordinary way, including summarizing the invention’s utility
`as follows:
`[A]n object of the present invention is to provide a collapsible tent
`frame, of which the center pole is coupled to the side poles, thus
`giving an enlarged and heightened interior space to users when
`pitching a tent and allowing a user to easily handle the frame when
`pitching or striking the tent.
`Patent at 2:7-12. In other words, for example, the system of the invention allows
`the center supporting ribs to rise as the canopy is expanded, in order to provide
`more headroom than previous designs.
`Law of Claim Construction
`The claims of a patent define the scope of the patent owner’s rights. See
`In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 503 F.3d 1254, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Words of
`a claim are typically given their plain and ordinary meaning. See Phillips v.
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). There is a heavy
`presumption in favor of the plain and ordinary meaning of claim language, as
`understood by one of skill in the art. See Elbex Video Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elecs.
`Corp., 508 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “[T]he context in which a term is
`used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive;” thus, the “claims
`themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim
`terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 4 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 95 Filed 05/26/20 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:1125
`
`
`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
`
`The “ordinary meaning” of a claim term could be insufficient in just four
`limited circumstances, where: (1) the patentee acted as her own lexicographer;4
`(2) the patentee clearly distinguished the term from prior art on the basis of a
`particular embodiment or expressly disclaimed subject matter; (3) the term
`chosen by the patentee so deprives the claim of clarity as to require resort to the
`other intrinsic evidence for a definite meaning; or (4) as a matter of statutory
`authority, the claim term may cover nothing more than the corresponding
`structure or step disclosed in the specification, as well as equivalents thereto, if
`the patentee phrased the claim term in step- or means-plus function language.
`See CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366-67 (Fed. Cir.
`2002).
`When the ordinary meaning is confirmed as the proper construction for a
`claim term (i.e., the inventor has not imparted a “novel meaning” to the term), a
`court need not provide any further “construction.” See, e.g., ActiveVideo
`Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`(“The district court did not err in concluding that these terms have plain
`meanings that do not require additional construction.”); Typhoon Touch Techs.,
`Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming district court’s
`holding that “no construction was necessary because the meaning was clear” for
`claim phrase “operating in conjunction with said processor to execute said
`application and said libraries to facilitate data collection operations”); Finjan,
`Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1206-07 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`(affirming jury instruction to “give . . . words in the claims their ordinary
`
`
`
`4 A patentee acts as his or her own “lexicographer” when the patentee clearly
`gives a “special definition” to a claim term that differs from the meaning it would
`otherwise possess. See Schoenhaus v. Genesco, Inc., 440 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed.
`Cir. 2006).
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 5 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 95 Filed 05/26/20 Page 6 of 15 Page ID #:1126
`
`
`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
`
`meaning” where “defendant’s proposed construction would unjustifiably narrow
`the term’s broad scope, which was not explicitly limited or redefined by the
`specification”).
`Finally, “In ruling on a claim of patent indefiniteness, a court must
`determine whether those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed
`when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v.
`Hartford Life Ins. Co., 359 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Exxon Research
`and Eng’g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “A claim
`is indefinite if its legal scope is not clear enough that a person of ordinary skill in
`the art could determine whether a particular composition infringes or not.”
`Geneva Pharms., Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 349 F.3d 1373, 1384 (Fed. Cir.
`2003). “If the meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be
`formidable and the conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will
`disagree, we have held the claim sufficiently clear to avoid invalidity on
`indefiniteness grounds.” Exxon Research, 265 F.3d at 1375.
`Claim Term 1: “Center pole”
`Defendants propose that this term be construed as “centrally-disposed,
`long, slender object.” Judge Wilson already reviewed, analyzed, and construed
`this claim term in 2002, however. Judge Wilson construed the “center pole” as a
`“centrally disposed element for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof.” See Ex.
`B at 2, 24-27 and 38-40. Not only is this Court’s 2002 analysis correct, but it
`occurred just five years after the invention, rather than 23 years. The prior
`construction is unassailable for that reason as well. Therefore, this Court should
`affirm its own prior construction of “center pole” as a “centrally disposed
`element for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof.”
`Moreover, as stated in Claim 1, a center pole is “constructed for stretching
`and sustaining a tent’s roof when a tent is pitched with the tent frame.” Patent at
`4:28-29. As seen below, Figures 3 and 4 depict the center pole as element 50 at
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 6 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 95 Filed 05/26/20 Page 7 of 15 Page ID #:1127
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`the center apex of the frame. See Patent at Figs. 3-4; Patent at 2:64-66; Patent at
`3:26-37.
`
`Figure 3 (excerpt)
`
`Figure 4 (excerpt)
`
`
`Based on these images, it is clear that the “center pole” generally refers to a
`centrally disposed element where the center pole ribs meet, and it performs the
`claimed function of stretching and sustaining the tent’s roof. Furthermore, the
`only embodiment disclosed in the ‘040 patent does not depict the “center pole”
`as a “long, slender object,” and limiting the term to that definition would
`nonsensically exclude the only embodiment disclosed in the ‘040 patent. See
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
`(construction that excludes preferred embodiment “rarely, if ever, correct and
`would require highly persuasive evidentiary support”); see also Johns Hopkins
`Univ. v. Cellpro, Inc., 152 F.3d 1342, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“A patent claim
`should be construed to encompass at least one disclosed embodiment in the
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 7 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 95 Filed 05/26/20 Page 8 of 15 Page ID #:1128
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`written description portion of the patent specification.”). Limiting the term to a
`“long, slender object” would also hamper the stated goal of providing more
`headroom in the tent, as it would be likely to bump one’s head on a “long,
`slender object” in the center of the canopy. Therefore, this Court should construe
`“center pole” as a “centrally disposed element for stretching and sustaining a
`tent’s roof” as it previously did in 2002.
`Claim Term 2: “Constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof”
`Defendants propose that this simple claim phrase requires the following
`re-interpretation: “made to heighten and hold up the tent covering.” This self-
`serving proposal, however, completely contradicts the claimed invention as
`explained further in the specification. For example, the specification states:
`“Therefore, the center pole 50 moves upwardly and sustains the center of the
`roof while stretching the roof as shown in FIG. 4.” Patent at 3:26-27 (emphasis
`added). As it further clarifies: “When the frame is stretched so as to pitch a tent,
`the center pole is fully moved upwardly along with the center pole ribs.” Patent
`at 3:13-14. As seen below, in Figure 4, when the frame is fully stretched out, the
`center pole applies pressure from below which sustains the weight of the roof,
`and stretches out the roof to make sure it is taut.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 8 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 95 Filed 05/26/20 Page 9 of 15 Page ID #:1129
`
`
`As opposed to Defendants’ erroneous proposed construction, the center pole is
`not required to “heighten” the roof of the tent, rather it is only required to support
`and stretch out the roof.
`Claim Term 3: “[Being] collapsible at the hinge joint in accordance with a
`sliding motion of said slider along the side pole”
`Defendants propose this phrase be construed as “when the tent frame is
`collapsed, the center pole ribs bend at the hinge joint, and the slider slides along
`the side pole.” Defendants’ garrulous proposed construction is incorrect for at
`least two reasons. First, it introduces a new, non-existent, “temporal” limitation.
`The claim does not state “when . . .” but instead, it recites “being collapsible at
`the hinge joint.” As one of ordinary skill undoubtedly would know, “being
`collapsible” is not the same as “when the tent frame is collapsed.” Accordingly,
`Defendants’ proposed construction would be improper.
`Second, Defendants’ proposal is nearly identical to the words they want
`construed. As such, it is unnecessary and unhelpful. In particular, the claim
`states:
`plurality of center pole ribs coupling said center pole to said
`connectors of the side poles, said center pole ribs individually
`comprising two rib members coupled to each other through a
`hinge joint and being hinged to the slider of an associated side pole
`through a support link, thus being collapsible at the hinge joint in
`accordance with a sliding motion of said slider along the side pole.
`Patent at 4:35-4:41 (emphasis added). It is clear from the claim language alone
`that the center pole ribs are comprised of two individual rib members joined at a
`hinge joint, which allows the rib members to be collapsible at the hinge joint.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 9 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 95 Filed 05/26/20 Page 10 of 15 Page ID #:1130
`
`
`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
`
`
`This is reinforced by the specification, which states:
`When it is necessary for a user to strike the tent, the user moves the
`four side poles 10 to the center of the tent frame, thus allowing the
`sliders 70 to move down on the side poles 10 while folding the
`scissor assemblies of the ribs 20 at the joints 20a. In such a case,
`the support links 40, connecting the center pole ribs 30 to the
`sliders 70, pull the ribs 30 downwardly, thus folding the ribs 30 at
`the joints 30a and moving the center pole 50 downwardly. The
`tent is thus completely struck with the tent frame being fully
`collapsed.
`Patent at 3:38-46 (emphasis added). For these reasons, the plain and ordinary
`meaning of the claim language used should stand.
`Claim Term 4: “[A] hinge joint”
`Defendants propose this term be construed as “a connector that pivots to
`raise or lower the collapsible tent frame.” However, this definition does not
`align with the claim, specification and figures, which establish that a “hinge
`joint” requires only its plain and ordinary meaning.
`As previously recited, the key portion of the claim states:
`plurality of center pole ribs coupling said center pole to said
`connectors of the side poles, said center pole ribs individually
`comprising two rib members coupled to each other through a
`hinge joint and being hinged to the slider of an associated side pole
`through a support link, thus being collapsible at the hinge joint in
`accordance with a sliding motion of said slider along the side pole.
`Patent at 4:35-4:41 (emphasis added). It is clear from the claim alone that the
`center pole ribs are comprised of two individual rib members joined at a hinge
`joint, which allows the rib members to collapse when the tent frame is collapsed
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 10 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 95 Filed 05/26/20 Page 11 of 15 Page ID #:1131
`
`
`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
`
`and the slider members move down the side pole. This is reinforced by the
`specification, which states:
`The center pole ribs 30 individually comprise two rib members,
`which have the same construction and are coupled to each other
`through a hinge joint 30a.
`Patent at 2:66-3:1 (emphasis added). The specification further states:
`When it is necessary to pitch the tent, the four side poles 10 are
`pushed outwardly at the same time, thus stretching the tent frame.
`When the side poles 10 are pushed outwardly as described above,
`the sliders 70 move upward along the side poles 10 while stretching
`the two types of ribs 20 and 30. Therefore, the tent frame stretches
`and sustains the canvas or other material and pitches the tent. In
`such a case, the center pole ribs 30 are fully stretched by the support
`links 40, which connect the ribs 30 to the sliders 70, with the hinge
`joints 30a of the ribs 30 being moved upwardly. Therefore, the
`center pole 50 moves upwardly and sustains the center of the roof
`while stretching the roof as shown in FIG. 4.
`Patent at 3:15-3:28 (emphasis added). And finally it states:
`When it is necessary for a user to strike the tent, the user moves the
`four side poles 10 to the center of the tent frame, thus allowing the
`sliders 70 to move down on the side poles 10 while folding the
`scissor assemblies of the ribs 20 at the joints 20a. In such a case,
`the support links 40, connecting the center pole ribs 30 to the sliders
`70, pull the ribs 30 downwardly, thus folding the ribs 30 at the
`joints 30a and moving the center pole 50 downwardly. The tent is
`thus completely struck with the tent frame being fully collapsed.
`Patent at 3:38-3:46 (emphasis added). Based on these portions of the
`specification, it is clear that the “hinge joint” is not “a connector that pivots to
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 11 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 95 Filed 05/26/20 Page 12 of 15 Page ID #:1132
`
`
`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
`
`raise or lower the collapsible tent frame,” but rather it is just a connecting joint
`for the two center pole rib members, which allows the center pole rib members to
`collapse or expand with the rest of the tent frame.
`Claim Term 5: “[A] support link”
`Defendants propose this term be construed as “a structure that connects a
`rib member with a slider associated with a side pole.” As stated above (in the
`discussion regarding Term 4, “[a] hinge joint”), the claim states:
`plurality of center pole ribs coupling said center pole to said
`connectors of the side poles, said center pole ribs individually
`comprising two rib members coupled to each other through a hinge
`joint and being hinged to the slider of an associated side pole
`through a support link, thus being collapsible at the hinge joint in
`accordance with a sliding motion of said slider along the side pole.
`Patent at 4:35-41 (emphasis added). It is clear from the claim alone that the
`support link attaches to the slider and center pole ribs in order to support the rib
`and allow it to collapse when the slider moves down the side pole. This is
`reinforced by the specification which states:
`The above center pole ribs 30 are also coupled to the sliders 70
`through support links 40 at the outside rib members, respectively.
`Patent at 2:66-3:1 (emphasis added). The specification further states:
`When it is necessary to pitch the tent, the four side poles 10 are
`pushed outwardly at the same time, thus stretching the tent frame.
`When the side poles 10 are pushed outwardly as described above,
`the sliders 70 move upward along the side poles 10 while stretching
`the two types of ribs 20 and 30. Therefore, the tent frame stretches
`and sustains the canvas or other material and pitches the tent. In
`such a case, the center pole ribs 30 are fully stretched by the
`support links 40, which connect the ribs 30 to the sliders 70, with
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 12 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 95 Filed 05/26/20 Page 13 of 15 Page ID #:1133
`
`
`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
`
`the hinge joints 30a of the ribs 30 being moved upwardly.
`Therefore, the center pole 50 moves upwardly and sustains the
`center of the roof while stretching the roof as shown in FIG. 4.
`Patent at 3:15-3:28 (emphasis added). And finally it states:
`When it is necessary for a user to strike the tent, the user moves the
`four side poles 10 to the center of the tent frame, thus allowing the
`sliders 70 to move down on the side poles 10 while folding the
`scissor assemblies of the ribs 20 at the joints 20a. In such a case,
`the support links 40, connecting the center pole ribs 30 to the
`sliders 70, pull the ribs 30 downwardly, thus folding the ribs 30 at
`the joints 30a and moving the center pole 50 downwardly. The tent
`is thus completely struck with the tent frame being fully collapsed.
`Patent at 3:38-3:46 (emphasis added).
`It is clear based on the specification and figures that the support links
`provide structural support, and allow the center pole ribs to expand and collapse
`with the movement of the sliders and the side legs of the tent frame as per the
`plain and ordinary meaning of “support link.”
`Claim Term 6: “[a] substantially equal length”
`Defendants propose this term is indefinite. However, it is obvious based
`on the specification and claim language itself that any layperson, let alone a
`person of ordinary skill in the art, would be able to determine if an apparatus in
`question meets this claim limitation.
`First, the Claim 2 states:
`A collapsible tent frame according to claim 1, wherein said rib
`members of the center pole ribs have a substantially equal length.
`Patent at 4:42-44 (emphasis added). Furthermore, the Claim 1 states:
`plurality of center pole ribs coupling said center pole to said
`connectors of the side poles, said center pole ribs individually
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 13 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 95 Filed 05/26/20 Page 14 of 15 Page ID #:1134
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`comprising two rib members coupled to each other through a
`hinge joint and being hinged to the slider of an associated side pole
`through a support link, thus being collapsible at the hinge joint in
`accordance with a sliding motion of said slider along the side pole.
`Patent at 4:35-41 (emphasis added). As claimed, it is clear that the center pole
`ribs are composed of two rib members, and a structure would infringe if the two
`rib members that composed a center pole rib had similar lengths. This is further
`reinforced in the specification, which states:
`The center pole ribs 30 individually comprise two rib members,
`which have the same construction and are coupled to each other
`through a hinge joint 30a.
`Patent at 2:66-3:1 (emphasis added). As such, it would be clear to a person of
`ordinary skill that the claim covers compositions which have center pole rib
`members of similar lengths. Therefore, this claim term is not indefinite.
`Conclusion
`Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court should adopt the claim
`construction positions advocated herein.
`
`
`Dated: May 26, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`SML Avvocati P.C.
`By:
`/s/ Stephen M. Lobbin
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 14 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 95 Filed 05/26/20 Page 15 of 15 Page ID #:1135
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
` I
`
` hereby certify that on May 26, 2020, I electronically transmitted the
`foregoing document using the CM/ECF system for filing, which will transmit the
`document electronically to all registered participants as identified on the Notice
`of Electronic Filing, and paper copies have been served on those indicated as
`non-registered participants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Stephen M. Lobbin
`
`
`
`15
`
`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
`
`
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1011 - Page 15 of 15
`
`