Case 2:19-cv-06978-PSG-ADS Document 37 Filed 06/23/20 Page 1of21 Page ID #:199
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`SACV 19-1072 PSG (ADSx) (LEAD consolidated case)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2020
`
`EDCV 19-1224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6978 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6952 PSG (ADSx)
`
`Title
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Home Depot U-S.A., Inc., etal.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLCetal.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Z-Shade Co. Ltd.et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc.etal.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Shelterlogic Corp.etal.
`
`
`
`Present: The Honorable_—Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge
`
`Wendy Hernandez
`Deputy Clerk
`
`Not Reported
`Court Reporter
`
`Attorneys Presentfor Plaintiff(s):
`Not Present
`
`Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):
`Not Present
`
`Proceedings (In Chambers):|The Court CONSTRUESthe Disputed Claim Termsas
`Stated Herein
`
`In 2019, Plaintiff Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the above-captioned
`actions for patent infringement in this District, asserting U.S. Patent No. 5,944,040 (“the ’040
`Patent”). The actions were consolidated forpretrial purposes. Dkt. # 52.1 Plaintiff and the
`remaining consolidated Defendants—Z-Shade Co.Ltd., Shelterlogic Corp., Lowe’s Home
`Center, LLC, Walmart, Inc., and Costco Wholesale Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”)—
`have now submitted disputed claim terms for construction.
`
`A Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statementreflecting the parties’ competing
`claim construction positions was filed on May 18, 2020. Dkt. #90 (“Joint Statement”). On
`
`1 All docketcitations in this Order refer to Lead Case No. SACV 19-1072 PSG (ADSx)unless
`otherwise noted.
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Page 1 of 21
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1018 - Page 1 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06978-PSG-ADS Document 37 Filed 06/23/20 Page 2 of 21 Page ID #:200
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`SACV 19-1072 PSG (ADSx) (LEAD consolidated case)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2020
`
`EDCV19-1224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6978 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6952 PSG (ADSx)
`
`Title
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Z-Shade Co.Ltd.etal.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Walmart,Inc.et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Shelterlogic Corp.etal.
`
`May26, 2020, Plaintiff and Defendantsfiled their respective opening claim construction briefs.
`Dkt. #95 (“P/. ’s Opening Br.”); Dkt. # 94 (“Defs.’ Opening Br.”). On June 8, 2020, Plaintiff
`and Defendants filed their respective responsive claim construction briefs. Dkt. #99 (“P/.’s
`Responsive Br.”’); Dkt. # 96 (“Defs.’ Responsive Br.”). The Court finds this matter suitable for
`resolution without oral argument, thus the Court VACATESthe Claim Construction Hearing
`presently set for June 29, 2020. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15.
`
`Having considered the moving papers, the Court CONSTRUESthe disputed claim
`terms as stated herein.
`
`L.
`
`Background
`
`The 040 Patent issued on August 31, 1999 andis titled “Collapsible Tent Frame.”
`Complaint, Dkt. # 1 (“Compl.”), § 19. Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ manufactured “products
`infringe claims 1-3 of the 040 Patent.” Jd. §§ 36-37. The ’040 Patent recites three total
`claims, and the parties’ disputed claim terms relate to claims 1 and 2. The three claims recite:
`
`A collapsible tent frame, comprising:
`1.
`a center pole constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof
`whena 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 ofsaid ribs being hingedto sliders movably fitted over
`said side poles; and
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Page 2 of 21
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1018 - Page 2 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06978-PSG-ADS Document 37 Filed 06/23/20 Page 3of21 Page ID #:201
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`SACV 19-1072 PSG (ADSx) (LEAD consolidated case)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2020
`
`EDCV19-1224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6978 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6952 PSG (ADSx)
`
`Title
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Z-Shade Co.Ltd.etal.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Walmart,Inc.et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Shelterlogic Corp.etal.
`
`plurality of center pole ribs coupling said center pole to said
`connectorsof the side poles, said center pole ribs individually
`comprising two rib members coupled to each other through a
`hinge joint and being hingedto the slider of an associated side
`pole through a support link, thus being collapsible at the hinge
`joint in accordancewith a sliding motion ofsaid slider along
`the side pole.
`A collapsible tent frame according to claim 1, wherein said rib
`members of the center pole ribs have a substantially equal
`length.
`further
`A collapsible tent frame, according to claim 2,
`comprising a claw member disposed at a lower end of each
`side pole.
`
`3.
`
`2
`
`°040 Patent, Claims 1—3. Additional explanation and discussion of the technology claimed by
`the 040 Patent will be providedin the relevant discussion sections of this Order.
`
`Il.
`
`Legal Standards
`
`A.—General Claim Construction Principles
`
`“The purpose of claim construction is to ‘determin[e] the meaning and scope of the
`patent claims asserted to be infringed.”” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d
`967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd 517 U.S. 370 (1996)). The Supreme Court has held
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Page 3 of 21
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1018 - Page 3 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06978-PSG-ADS Document 37 Filed 06/23/20 Page 4 of 21 Page ID #:202
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`SACV 19-1072 PSG (ADSx) (LEAD consolidated case)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2020
`
`EDCV19-1224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6978 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6952 PSG (ADSx)
`
`Title
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Z-Shade Co.Ltd.etal.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Walmart,Inc.et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Shelterlogic Corp.etal.
`
`that claim construction is a matter of law “exclusively within the province of the court.”
`Markman, 517 U.S. at 372. “That is so even where the construction of a termofart has
`‘evidentiary underpinnings.” Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 8. Ct. 831, 835
`(2015) (quoting Markman, 517 U.S.at 390).
`
`Whenconstruing claim terms, a court mustfirst “look to the wordsof the claims
`themselves. .
`. to define the scope of the patent invention.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
`Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Words of the claims are “generally given their
`ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning they “would haveto 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.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir.
`2005) (en banc) (citation omitted).
`
`However, a claim term should be construed “not only in the context of the particular
`claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the
`specification.” Jd. at 1313. The specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of a
`disputed term,” and the court should “rely heavily” on it for guidance. Jd. at 1315, 1317.
`
`Further, a court should consider the patent’s prosecution history—the complete record of
`the proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and the prior
`art cited during the patent’s examination—becauseit “provides evidence of how the PTO and
`the inventor understoodthe patent.” Jd. at 1317. “[B]ecause the prosecution history represents
`an ongoing negotiation between the PTO andthe applicant, rather than the final productof that
`negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the specification and thusis less useful for claim
`construction purposes.” Jd.
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Page 4 of 21
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1018 - Page 4 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06978-PSG-ADS Document 37 Filed 06/23/20 Page5 of 21 Page ID #:203
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`SACV 19-1072 PSG (ADSx) (LEAD consolidated case)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2020
`
`EDCV19-1224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6978 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6952 PSG (ADSx)
`
`Title
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Z-Shade Co.Ltd.etal.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Walmart,Inc.et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Shelterlogic Corp.etal.
`
`Lastly, although less significant than the intrinsic record, courts may “rely on extrinsic
`evidence, which ‘consists of all evidence externalto the patent and prosecution history,
`including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learnedtreatises.’” Jd. (quoting
`Markman, 52 F.3d at 980). “Extrinsic evidence may be useful to the court, but it is unlikely to
`result in a reliable interpretation of patent claim scope unless consideredin the context of the
`intrinsic evidence.” Jd. at 1319.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Term Indefiniteness
`
`“[A] patent’s claims, viewedin light of the specification and prosecution history, [must]
`inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.”
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014). A claimterm is invalid as
`indefinite if it fails to “particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[] the subject matter which
`the inventoror a joint inventor regardsas the invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 § 2.”
`
`Nautilus recognized that absolute precision is unobtainable in patent claim language
`given “the inherent limitations of language.” Jd. at 910. However, it stated that patent
`language mustbe precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed, thereby “appris[ing]
`the public of whatis still open to them.” Jd. at 899 (quoting Markman, 517 U.S. at 373).
`
`? The America Invents Act (“AIA”) changed the sub-section designations for § 112 from
`numbered paragraphsto lettered sub-sections. Thus, for instance, 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) applies to
`patents with an effective filing date after relevant provisions of the AIA wentinto effect. The
`language ofthe section was not otherwise altered by the AIA. Because the ’040 Patent asserts
`a priority claim to an application filed May 23, 1997, the Court will refer to the older paragraph
`designation for the relevant sub-section of § 112, i.e., “§ 112, 92.”
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Page 5 of 21
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1018 - Page 5 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06978-PSG-ADS Document 37 Filed 06/23/20 Page 6 of 21 Page ID #:204
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`SACV 19-1072 PSG (ADSx) (LEAD consolidated case)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2020
`
`EDCV 19-1224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6978 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6952 PSG (ADSx)
`
`Title
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Z-Shade Co.Ltd.etal.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Walmart,Inc.et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Shelterlogic Corp.etal.
`
`Arguments for indefiniteness may beraised during claim construction. See Biosig
`Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 783 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“In the face of an
`allegation of indefiniteness, general principles of claim construction apply.” (citations
`omitted)). A party must prove indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence. BASF Corp.v.
`Johnson Matthey Inc., 875 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Ill.
`
`Discussion
`
`1.
`
`“center pole” (Claim 1)
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction “Centrally disposed elementfor stretching|“centrally-disposed, long, slender object”
`
`Plaintiff's Proposed Construction
`
`and sustaining a tent’s roof”
`
`Theparties dispute the construction of “center pole,” which appears in claim 1 of the
`°040 Patent. In relevant part, claim 1 recites “a centerpole constructed for stretching and
`sustaining a tent’s roof whena tentis pitched with the tent frame... .” ’040 Patent, Claim 1
`(emphasis added).
`
`Initially, the parties do not appear to dispute the meaning of “center,” where each party
`proposed a construction of“centrally disposed.” The Court determinesthat “center”is a lay
`term that is easily understood, has no specialized meaning within the context of the ’040 Patent,
`and that the parties’ proposed construction of “centrally disposed”addslittle in the way of
`clarity. Thus, the Court declines to construe “center.”
`
`Regarding the balance of Plaintiff's proposed construction, the Court declines to adoptit
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Page 6 of 21
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1018 - Page 6 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06978-PSG-ADS Document 37 Filed 06/23/20 Page 7 of 21 Page ID #:205
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`SACV 19-1072 PSG (ADSx) (LEAD consolidated case)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2020
`
`EDCV19-1224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6978 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6952 PSG (ADSx)
`
`Title
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Z-Shade Co.Ltd.etal.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Walmart,Inc.et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Shelterlogic Corp.etal.
`
`for two reasons. First, Plaintiff's proposed construction is redundant. Claim 1 recites “a center
`pole constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof... .” ’040 Patent, Claim 1
`(emphasis added). Construing “center pole” to be a “centrally disposed elementfor stretching
`and sustaining a tent’s roof’ would thus simply repeat the claim language. Second,Plaintiff's
`construction of “pole” as an “element” impermissibly broadens the scope of the claim. The
`Court rejects Plaintiff's position that an “element”is always a “pole.” Neither the intrinsic nor
`extrinsic evidence supports such a construction.?
`
`Sunilarly, Defendants’ proposed construction of “pole”as an “object” likewise
`improperly broadensthe scope of the claim. The Court rejects Defendants’ position that an
`“object” is alwaysa “pole.”
`
`Thus, the sole remaining dispute is whether a pole must be, as Defendants propose,
`“long” and “slender.” The Court is unpersuaded by Defendants’ arguments. First, Defendants
`argue the figures depict “side pole” and “center pole” as long, slender objects. Defs.’ Opening
`Br. 8:9-13. Defendants’ argumentis legally insufficient, because disclosure of a preferred
`embodiment, without more, generally does not suffice to limit claim scope. Agfa Corp. v. Creo
`Prods. Ine., 451 F.3d 1366, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (affirmingtrial court’s decision not to
`limit term according to how it was depictedin the figures). Even if Defendants’ position were
`proper, the figures do not support Defendants’ construction. The ’040 Patent depicts the
`“center pole 50, having a simple construction, through a center pole rib 30”:
`
`3 Additionally, construing “pole”as an “element”introducesthe risk of improperly
`transforming claim | into a means-plus-function clan.
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Page 7 of 21
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1018 - Page 7 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06978-PSG-ADS Document 37 Filed 06/23/20 Page 8 of 21 Page ID #:206
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`SACV 19-1072 PSG (ADSx) (LEAD consolidated case)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2020
`
`EDCV 19-1224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6978 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6952 PSG (ADSx)
`
`Title
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Z-Shade Co.Ltd.etal.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Walmart,Inc.et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Shelterlogic Corp.etal.
`
`
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`F | 6.4
`
`Page 8 of21
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1018 - Page 8 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06978-PSG-ADS Document 37 Filed 06/23/20 Page 9 of 21 Page ID #:207
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`SACV 19-1072 PSG (ADSx) (LEAD consolidated case)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2020
`
`EDCV19-1224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6978 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6952 PSG (ADSx)
`
`Title
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Z-Shade Co.Ltd.etal.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Walmart,Inc.et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Shelterlogic Corp.etal.
`
`°040 Patent, Fig. 4 (annotations added); id. 2:64—66. Defendants do not explain how to
`evaluate whether an objectis “long” and “slender,” andit is unclear to the Court whether
`“center pole 50”is long and slender. To the extentit is not long and slender, Defendants’
`construction is heavily disfavored. On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH,
`386 F.3d 1133, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[A] claim interpretation that excludes a preferred
`embodimentfrom the scope ofthe claim is rarely, if ever, correct.” (citations omitted)).
`Defendants have not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate why exclusion ofa preferred
`embodiment would be proper.
`
`Second, Defendants argue the prosecution history references U.S. Patent No. 4,779,635
`(“635 Patent” or “Lynch”), and Lynchalso depicts poles as long and slender. Defs.’ Opening
`Br. 9:10-16. The Court gives Defendants’ argumentlittle weight where Lynch expressly refers
`to “support members,” not “poles.” See, e.g., 635 Patent at 5:12 (“four corner support
`members”); id. at 5:30 (“roof support members”).
`
`Third, Defendants argue dictionaries from the time of the invention support their
`proposed construction. Defs.’ Opening Br. 9:17—23. For example, Defendantscite a dictionary
`that defines pole as “a long, cylindrical, often slender piece of wood, metal, etc.” Jd. at 9:19-20
`(citing Webster’s Encyclopedia Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1996)).
`However, Defendants’ dictionary definition, even if proper to consider, states that a poleis
`“often slender,” but not always. Construing the term to require a pole to be “always slender”
`would be inconsistent with the dictionary definition.
`
`Finally, the Court declines to follow a prior construction for “center pole” from this
`District. The parties who appearedin that case presented different arguments, and no analysis
`was provided explaining the basis for the court’s adoption of the construction Plaintiff proposed
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Page 9 of 21
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1018 - Page 9 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06978-PSG-ADS Document 37 Filed 06/23/20 Page 10 of 21 Page ID #:208
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`SACV 19-1072 PSG (ADSx) (LEAD consolidated case)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2020
`
`EDCV19-1224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6978 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6952 PSG (ADSx)
`
`Title
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Z-Shade Co.Ltd.etal.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Walmart,Inc.et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Shelterlogic Corp.etal.
`
`in that case. Int’] E-Z Up,et al. v. Caravan CanopyIntl, et al., Case No. 2:01-cv-6530-SVW-
`AJWx, Dkt. # 96 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2002). Forall the reasons presentedin this section, the
`Court respectfully reaches a different conclusionhere.
`
`The parties have not demonstrated a fundamental dispute regarding the underlying
`meaning for the term “pole,” including whyits ordinary meaning should not apply. To the
`contrary, the Court finds that in light of the specification and the claims, a layperson could
`understand the term “pole.” Neither party submitted evidence or argumentthat “pole” has a
`specialized meaningin the field. Thus, the Court declines to construe the term.
`
`2.
`
`“constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof” (Claim 1)
`
`Plaintiff's Proposed Construction
`Ordinary meaning
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`“made to heighten and hold up the tent
`covering”
`
`Theparties dispute the construction of “constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s
`roof,” which appears in claim 1 of the ’040 Patent. In relevant part, claim 1 recites “a center
`pole constructedfor stretching and sustaining a tent’s roofwhena tentis pitched with the tent
`frame ....” ’040 Patent, Claim 1 (emphasis added).
`
`The parties’ dispute appears to center around whether“stretching”a tent’s roof requires,
`as Defendants argue, “heighten[ing]” the tent covering. The Court is not persuaded by
`Defendants’ arguments. First, Defendants argue the “function of the center pole [is] to
`heighten and hold up the tent... .” Defs.’ Opening Br. 14:35. Defendantsassert the ’040
`Patent claims a benefit of its invention is that users may freely go in andoutof the tent without
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Page 10 of 21
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1018 - Page 10 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06978-PSG-ADS Document 37 Filed 06/23/20 Page 11 of 21 Page ID #:209
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`SACV 19-1072 PSG (ADSx) (LEAD consolidated case)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2020
`
`EDCV 19-1224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6978 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6952 PSG (ADSx)
`
`Title
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Z-Shade Co.Ltd.etal.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Walmart,Inc.et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Shelterlogic Corp.etal.
`
`concern for bumping one’s headinto the center pole. Jd. 14:5—7. However, the specification
`also expressly states that the center pole “sustains the center of the roof while stretching the
`roof.” °040 Patent 3:26—27 (emphasis added). In light of the specification’s disclosure, and the
`language ofthe claims, Defendants’ construction is improper. Nor does Defendants’ citation to
`a dictionary definition warrant a different outcome, because Defendants havenotcited a
`definition for “stretching” that requires “heightening.” Defs.’ Opening Br. 14:9-12.
`
`Moreover, the Court finds thatin light of the specification and the claims, a layperson
`could understand the term “constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof.” Neither
`party submitted evidence or argumentthat any portion ofthis term has a specialized meaning in
`the field. Thus, the Court declines to construe the term.
`
`3.
`
`“[being] collapsible at the hinge joint in accordance with a sliding motion ofsaid
`slider along the side pole” (Claim 1)
`
`Plaintiff's Proposed Construction
`Ordinary meaning
`
`1
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`“when the tent frame is collapsed, the
`center pole ribs bendat the hinge joint,
`and theslider slides along
`
`The parties dispute the construction of “[being] collapsible at the hinge joint in
`accordance with a sliding motion ofsaid slider along the side pole,” which appears in claim 1
`of the ’040 Patent. In relevant part, claim 1 recites “center pole ribs .
`.
`. coupled to each other
`througha hinge joint and being hingedto the slider of the 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.” ’040 Patent, Claim 1. Figure 3 of the ’040 Patent depicts the
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Page 11 of 21
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1018 - Page 11 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06978-PSG-ADS Document 37 Filed 06/23/20 Page 12 of 21 Page ID #:210
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`SACV 19-1072 PSG (ADSx) (LEAD consolidated case)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2020
`
`EDCV 19-1224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6978 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6952 PSG (ADSx)
`
`Title
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Z-Shade Co.Ltd.etal.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Walmart,Inc.et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Shelterlogic Corp.etal.
`
`. individually coupled to center pole 50 .
`
`.
`
`“four side poles 10 .
`
`.
`
`. through a center pole rib 30”:
`
`°040 Patent, Fig. 3 (annotations added); id. 2:64—66. The specification further describes the
`center pole ribs comprise two rib members, which “are coupled to each other through a hinge
`joint 30a.” Id. 2:67—3:1. The specification further describes that the center pole ribs connectto
`the corner poles through connector 60 at the top of the side pole, and through the support link
`40, which connects to sliders 70. Jd. 3:1-3. The sliders 70 are designedto slide along the side
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Page 12 of 21
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1018 - Page 12 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06978-PSG-ADS Document 37 Filed 06/23/20 Page 13 of 21 Page ID #:211
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`SACV 19-1072 PSG (ADSx) (LEAD consolidated case)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2020
`
`EDCV19-1224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6978 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6952 PSG (ADSx)
`
`Title
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Z-Shade Co.Ltd.etal.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Walmart,Inc.et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Shelterlogic Corp.etal.
`
`poles during pitching andstriking ofthe tent. Jd. 3:8—-10.
`
`The parties agree that this term should receive its ordinary meaning. The dispute centers
`around whether Defendants’ construction wouldassist the jury. Defendants propose construing
`“Tbeing] collapsible” as “whenthe tent frame is collapsed.” However, the Court finds this
`improperly narrowsthe claim becauseit introducesthe limitation that the center pole ribs
`collapse whenthe “tent frame” collapses. The claim term merely requiresthat the ribs be
`collapsible. Additionally, the Court finds “being collapsible” to be a term easily understood by
`a jury and requiring no construction.
`
`Regarding the remaining portion of the claim, construction willassist the trier of fact.
`Thus, the Court will construe the smaller portion “in accordance with a sliding motionof said
`slider along the side pole.” Claim | recites “center pole ribs individually comprising two rib
`members coupled to each other through a hinge joint... .” ’040 Patent, Claim 1. The center
`pole ribs in turn are “hingedto the slider of an associated side pole through a support link .
`.
`.
`Id. Thus, whenthe slider moves“along the side pole,” the support link likewise movesalong
`the side pole, causing the hingejoint to collapse. Jd. In other words, claim 1 describesall
`actions(slidersliding, hinge joint collapsing) occurring at the same time, becausetheslider,
`support link, center pole rib, and hinge jointare all connected. The descriptions in the
`specification are consistent with the recited claim limitations.
`’040 Patent 3:42—45 (“In such a
`case [wherea userstrikes the tent], 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... .”).
`Accordingly, the Court construes “in accordance with a sliding motion ofsaid slider along the
`side pole” as “whensaidslider slides along the side pole.”
`
`.”
`
`>
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Page 13 of 21
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1018 - Page 13 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06978-PSG-ADS Document 37 Filed 06/23/20 Page 14 of 21 Page ID #:212
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`SACV 19-1072 PSG (ADSx) (LEAD consolidated case)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2020
`
`EDCV 19-1224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6978 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6952 PSG (ADSx)
`
`Title
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Z-Shade Co.Ltd.etal.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Walmart,Inc.et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Shelterlogic Corp.etal.
`
`4.
`
`“[a] hinge joint” (Claim 1)
`
`Plaintiff's Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction Ordinary meaning
`
`“a connectorthat pivots to raise or lower
`the collapsible tent frame
`
`Theparties dispute the construction of “hinge joint,” which appears in claim 1 of the
`°040 Patent. In relevant part, claim 1 recites “two rib members coupled to each other through a
`hingejoint .
`.
`.
`, thus being collapsible at the hingejoint in accordance with a sliding motion of
`said slider along the side pole.” ’040 Patent, Claim 1.
`
`It is unclear whatthe parties’ dispute regarding this term is. Defendants argue that
`during prosecution, the patent applicant expressly argued that a hingejoint “pivots,” in order to
`overcome“telescoping”prior art. Defs.’ Opening. Br. 17:12—15. Defendants thus appear to
`advocate for a construction of hinge joint that excludes any telescoping motion. However,
`Plaintiff agrees with this point. P/.’s Responsive Br. 9:8—9 (“A POSITA would understand that
`telescopic motionis not included within the plain and ordinary meaning of‘hinge joint.’”). The
`Court independently agrees with both parties that a “hinge joint” does not include a joint
`between telescoping members.
`
`The remainder of Defendants’ proposed construction improperly narrowsthe scope of
`the term. Defendants’ proposed construction requires movementof the hinge joint “to raise or
`lower the collapsible tent frame.” While the specification may describe folding at the hinge
`joints in the context of pitching or striking the tent frame, the Court finds Defendants’ request
`to expressly addthis limitation to “hinge joint”insufficiently supported.
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Page 14 of 21
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1018 - Page 14 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06978-PSG-ADS Document 37 Filed 06/23/20 Page 15 of 21 Page ID #:213
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Case No.
`
`SACV 19-1072 PSG (ADSx) (LEAD consolidated case)
`
`Date
`
`June 23, 2020
`
`EDCV 19-1224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6224 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6978 PSG (ADSx)
`
`CV 19-6952 PSG (ADSx)
`
`Title
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Z-Shade Co.Ltd.etal.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Walmart,Inc.et al.
`
`Caravan CanopyIntl, Inc. v. Shelterlogic Corp.etal.
`
`Finally,in light of the claimsandthe specification, the Court does not find “hinge joint”
`to be complex, given the language of the claims and the specification. Claim | recites “two rib
`members coupled to each other through a hinge joint,” and “being collapsible at the hinge
`joint.” °040 Patent, Claim 1. The Court is not persuadedthat “hinge joint”is unclear in the
`context of the 040 Patent and requires construction. Thus, the Court declines to construe
`“hinge joint.”
`
`5.
`
`“Sal support link” (Claim 1)
`
`Plaintiff's Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction Ordinary meaning
`
`“a structure that connects a rib member
`with a slider associated with a side pole”
`
`The parties dispute the construction of the term “[a] support link,” which appears in
`claim 1 of the ’040 Patent. In relevant part, claim 1 of the 040 Patentrecites:
`
`plurality of center pole nbs 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 hingedto the slider ofan associated side
`pole through a support link, thus being collapsible at the hinge
`joint in accordancewith a sliding motion ofsaid slider along
`the side pole.
`
`°040 Patent, Claim | (emphasis added).
`
`CV-90 (10/08)
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL
`
`Page 15 of 21
`
`Petitioner Walmart Inc.
`Exhibit 1018 - Page 15 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-06978-PSG-ADS Document 37 Filed 06/23/20 Page 16 of 21 Page ID #:214
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES —- GENER