`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 94 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 29 Page ID #:941
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`STEVEN D. MOORE (State Bar No. 290875)
`smoore@kilpatricktownsend.com
`Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1900
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 576-0200
`Facsimile:
`(415) 576-0300
`
`MEGAN M. CHUNG (State Bar No. 232044)
`mchung@kilpatricktownsend.com
`1801 Century Park East, Suite 2300
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: (310) 248-3830
`Direct:
`(858) 350-
`Facsimile:
`(310) 860-0363
`
`Attorneys for Defendant WALMART INC.
`(Additional Counsel Included On Signature Page)
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`CARAVAN CANOPY INT’L,
`INC., a California Corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`WALMART INC., a Delaware
`Corporation; and DOES 1 through
`10, inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS
`Case No. 5:19-cv-01224-PSG-ADS
`Case No. 2:19-cv-06224-PSG-ADS
`Case No. 2:19-cv-06952-PSG-ADS
`Case No. 2:19-cv-06978-PSG-ADS
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT OPENING
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Judge: Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-01072-PSG-ADS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 29
`
`Petitioners Exhibit 1012
`Patent 5,944,040
`
`

`

`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 94 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 29 Page ID #:942
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 
`The ’040 Patent ........................................................................................... 1 
`A. 
`Relevant Disclosures from the Specification .................................... 1 
`B. 
`Relevant Prosecution History ........................................................... 5 
`C. 
`Prior Litigation Involving the ’040 Patent ........................................ 5 
`III.  Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ............................................................... 6 
`IV.  Claim Construction Legal Principles .......................................................... 6 
`V. 
`Construction of the Disputed Terms ........................................................... 7 
`A. 
`The claim term “center pole” should be construed to
`mean a “centrally-disposed, long, slender object”. ........................... 7 
`i. 
`The Court should adopt Defendants’
`construction. ...................................................................................... 7 
`ii. 
`Plaintiff’s proposal is wrong. ................................................ 10 
`iii. 
`This Court is not bound by the E-Z Up
`construction. .................................................................................... 12 
`The term “constructed for stretching and sustaining a
`tent’s roof” should be construed as “made to heighten
`and hold up the tent covering”. ....................................................... 13 
`The term “being collapsible at the hinge joint in
`accordance with a sliding motion of said slider along
`a side pole” means “when the tent frame is collapsed,
`the center pole ribs bend at the hinge joint, and the
`slider slides along the side pole.” .................................................... 15 
`The term “hinge joint” means “a connector that
`pivots to raise or lower the collapsible tent frame”. ....................... 16 
`The “support link” should be construed as “a
`structure that connects a rib member with a slider
`associated with a side pole”. ........................................................... 18 
`“[S]ubstantially equal length” is indefinite. .................................... 20 
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`
`
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-01072-PSG-ADS
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 29
`
`

`

`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 94 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 29 Page ID #:943
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Aubin Indus., Inc. v. Caster Concepts, Inc.,
`No. 2:14-cv-02082-MCE-CKD, 2017 WL 4284715 (E.D. Cal. Sept.
`27, 2017) ................................................................................................................. 20
`Aug. Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd.,
`655 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................ 6
`Baxter HealthCare Corp. v. Mylan Lab. Ltd.,
`2016 WL 1337279 (D.N.J. 2016) ........................................................................... 17
`Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.,
`783 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 20
`Effective Exploration, LLC v. Bluestone Natural Res. II, LLC,
`No. 2:16-CV-00607-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 3193322 (E.D. Tex. July
`27, 2017) ................................................................................................................. 21
`Fin Control Sys. Pty., Ltd. v. OAM, Inc.,
`265 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................ 8
`GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
`750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 10
`GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Lights of Am., Inc.,
`663 Fed. App’x 938 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................... 20
`Geodynamics, Inc. v. Dynaenergetics US, Inc.,
`No. 2:15-CV-1546-RSP, 2016 WL 6217181 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 25,
`2016) ....................................................................................................................... 21
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 12-CV-02885-LHK, 2013 WL 4446819 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13,
`2013) ................................................................................................................. 15, 16
`Guardian Media Techs. Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. CV 13-8369 PSG, 2015 WL 12656953 (C.D.Cal. Apr. 1, 2015) ................... 19
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 20
`ii
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-01072-PSG-ADS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 29
`
`

`

`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 94 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 29 Page ID #:944
`
`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
`
`
`HZNP Meds. LLC v. Acavis Labs. UT, Inc.,
`940 F.3d 680 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................ 11
`Int’l E-Z Up, Inc., et al. v. Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc., et al.,
`No. 2:01-cv-06530 (C.D. Cal. July 30, 2001) ................................................. passim
`Jackson Jordan, Inc. v. Plasser American Corp.,
`747 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .............................................................................. 12
`Liberty Ammunition, Inc. v. United States,
`835 F.3d 1388 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 20
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) ..................................................................................... 6, 12, 13
`Maytag Corp. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.,
`411 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (N.D. Iowa 2006) ................................................................ 14
`NobelBiz, Inc. v. Global Connect, LLC,
`2017 WL 3044641 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 17
`NuVasive, Inc. v. Globus Medial, Inc.,
`2013 WL 3705731 (D. Del. 2013) ......................................................................... 17
`Phillips v. AHW Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................. 6, 13, 18, 19
`Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc.,
`599 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .............................................................................. 15
`Rheox, Inc. v. Entact, Inc.,
`276 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .............................................................................. 17
`Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc.,
`508 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .............................................................................. 11
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.,
`299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002) .............................................................................. 11
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................ 6
`Townshend Intellectual Prop., L.L.C. v. Broadcom Corp.,
`No. C-06-05118 JF (RS), 2008 WL 171039 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2008) ................. 13
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-01072-PSG-ADS
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 29
`
`

`

`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 94 Filed 05/26/20 Page 5 of 29 Page ID #:945
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Valmont Indus., Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co.,
`983 F.2d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .............................................................................. 12
`In re Walter,
`698 Fed. App’x 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................... 20
`Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
`792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................. 12
`Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co.,
`442 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................................................................. 10
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6) ....................................................................................................... 12
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-01072-PSG-ADS
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 29
`
`

`

`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 94 Filed 05/26/20 Page 6 of 29 Page ID #:946
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Caravan’s patent describes a specific type of collapsible tent frame. The
`claimed frame requires a “center pole” that stretches and sustains the roof when a
`tent is pitched. The parties disagree on the proper meaning of the claimed center
`pole. In an attempt to broaden the reach of its patent, Caravan suggests a
`construction that replaces the specific structure claimed, “pole,” with a generic term,
`“element.” But the evidence does not support such an outcome. Nor does the
`evidence justify Caravan’s request that the Court decline to construe the remaining
`five disputed terms. Although the patented technology is simple, the disputed claim
`terms contain opaque language requiring the constructions Defendants propose or,
`for the final term, recite indefinite language.
`II. THE ’040 PATENT
`A. Relevant Disclosures from the Specification
`U.S. Patent No. 5,944,040 (the “’040 Patent”) is directed to a collapsible tent
`frame, such as those “capable of making, pitching or striking a tent easily and
`quickly when necessary and, more particularly to a collapsible tent frame suitable
`for giving an enlarged and heightened interior space to users when pitching a tent.”
`Dkt. 1-1 (’040 Patent), 1:4-10. It issued on August 31, 1999, from an application
`filed on May 21, 1998. The patent expired on May 21, 2018.
`The ’040 Patent acknowledges that collapsible tent frames were well-known
`in the prior art. Indeed, the admitted prior art (shown in Figures 1 and 2) contains
`most of the components recited in the three asserted claims. The ’040 Patent
`explains that known tent frames could “be easily and quickly pitched or struck when
`necessary”—where pitch means to raise the tent, and strike means to lower it—and
`were “preferably designed for being collapsible.” Id., 1:15-22.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-01072-PSG-ADS
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 29
`
`

`

`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 94 Filed 05/26/20 Page 7 of 29 Page ID #:947
`
`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 prior art figures above confirm that these known frames had four side
`poles (Element 1) connected to each other by side pole ribs (Element 2, depicting
`scissor assemblies). Id., 1:23-29, Figs. 1, 2. Upper ends of the side pole ribs are
`hinged to the tops of the side poles. Lower ends of the side pole ribs are hinged to
`sliders (Element 7) moveably fitted over the side poles. Id., 1:32-35. Movement of
`the side poles towards the center of the frame causes the sliders to move down the
`side poles, which folds the side pole ribs, leading to closure of the tent. Id., 1:34-37.
`To support the top of the tent, the prior art collapsible tent frame also included
`four center pole ribs (identified as Element 3 scissor assemblies), with outer ends
`coupled to the joints in each side pole rib and inner ends coupled to a center pole,
`identified as Element 6. See, e.g., id., 1:39-43 & Fig. 1.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-01072-PSG-ADS
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 29
`
`

`

`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 94 Filed 05/26/20 Page 8 of 29 Page ID #:948
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’040 Patent, Figure 1 (Prior Art)
`
`
`
`The patent identifies problems with prior art collapsible tent frames. These
`include limited headspace because the center pole ribs extend horizontally across the
`frame, thereby requiring users to be careful not to hit their heads when inside the
`tent. Id., 1:54-64. Other problems included complex construction of the center
`pole’s slide guider (Element 5) and the heavy weight of the frame. Id., 1:65-2:2.
`To solve these problems, the ’040 Patent describes as “the present invention”
`a collapsible tent frame in “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.” Id.,
`2:5-12. Referring to Figures 3 and 4, the patent describes the center pole ribs 30
`connecting the center pole 50 directly to the side poles 10 at the corners of the
`frame, rather than the prior art construction connecting the center pole ribs at the
`center of the side pole ribs. Id., 2:64-66.
`The center pole ribs include two rib members joined together by a hinge 30a
`that bends when the tent is raised/lowered. Id., 2:66-3:4, 3:23-27. The outside rib
`member is “coupled to the sliders 70” on the side poles 10 “through support links
`40.” Id., 2:66-3:1. When pitching the tent, the support links 40 function to fully
`stretch the center pole ribs 30 and the side pole ribs 20. Id., 3:14-28. When striking
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-01072-PSG-ADS
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 29
`
`

`

`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 94 Filed 05/26/20 Page 9 of 29 Page ID #:949
`
`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 tent, the support links 40 pull the center pole ribs 30 downwardly, thereby
`folding the center pole ribs 30 at the hinge joint 30a and moving the center pole 50
`downwardly. Id., 3:38-45. The ’040 Patent describes “center pole 50” as “having a
`simple construction,” rather than the “complex construction” of prior art center
`pole 6 that included a slide guider and connector. Id., 2:64, 65, & 1:65-67.
`
`
`The ’040 Patent Figure 3
`
`
`
`
`
`To address the problems of limited head space, heavy weight of the frame,
`and complex construction, the applicant removed extraneous pieces from the tent
`frame. The applicant removed the portion of the scissor-style center pole ribs of the
`prior art that connected the center of the scissor assembly to the slide guider. The
`scissor-style center pole ribs 3 of the prior art canopy were modified to include the
`support links 40 and remove the bottom scissor portion that connected to the slide
`guider of the center pole. Thus, only one connection point at top would be needed
`to connect the center pole ribs to the center pole.
`The slide guider 5 of the prior art has therefore been eliminated, allowing the
`center pole 6 to be shortened to the center pole 50 found in the representative
`embodiment. Essentially, a shorter center pole replaced the combination of the slide
`guider 5 and the center pole 6.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-01072-PSG-ADS
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 29
`
`

`

`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 94 Filed 05/26/20 Page 10 of 29 Page ID #:950
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`’040 Patent Figure 1 (Prior Art)
`
`’040 Patent Figure 3
`
`B. Relevant Prosecution History
`The application that led to the ’040 Patent originally contained a single
`independent claim. In the first Non-Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected the
`single independent claim as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 4,779,635 to Lynch. See
`Declaration of Dario Machleidt (“Machleidt Decl.”), at Ex. A (’040 Patent File
`History), at 52.1 In a response, the applicant amended claim 1 and also submitted
`new dependent claims 2 and 3. Id., at 59-60.
`The applicant also argued why Lynch did not anticipate the alleged invention.
`According to the applicant, Lynch’s “roof support member 40” does not disclose the
`claimed “center pole ribs.” Id., at 61. The applicant characterized Lynch’s “roof
`support member 40” as telescoping when the tent is struck, which was allegedly
`patentably distinct from a “center pole rib” that includes “two rib members coupled
`to each other through a hinge joint.” Id., at 61.
`C.
`Prior Litigation Involving the ’040 Patent
`Caravan asserted the ’040 Patent in a prior litigation in this district: Int’l E-Z
`Up, Inc., et al. v. Caravan Canopy Int’l, Inc., et al., No. 2:01-cv-06530 (C.D. Cal.
`July 30, 2001) (“E-Z Up Case”). In that case, International E-Z Up, Inc., James P.
`Lynch, and K.D. Kanopy, Inc. (collectively, the “E-Z Up Plaintiffs”) sued Caravan
`for infringement of an unrelated patent. Caravan counterclaimed against the E-Z Up
`
`1 All exhibits are attached to the Machleidt Declaration.
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-01072-PSG-ADS
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 29
`
`

`

`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 94 Filed 05/26/20 Page 11 of 29 Page ID #:951
`
`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
`
`
`Plaintiffs, alleging infringement of the ’040 Patent.
`During the Markman phase of that case, Caravan, as it does here, argued that
`“center pole” must mean “a centrally-disposed element for stretching and sustaining
`a tent’s roof.” See Ex. B (Caravan Opening Markman Br., E-Z Up Case), at 21.
`Caravan contended that the applicant acted as its own lexicographer by treating the
`claimed “center pole” as something other than a “pole.” Id. (Caravan alleging that
`it “is easy to see that the depicted element is not a ‘pole’ in any conventional
`sense”). Caravan relied only upon Figures 3 and 4 of the ’040 Patent to argue that
`the center pole disclosed in those figures is not an elongated element. Id. at 21. The
`court adopted Caravan’s proposed construction of the term “center pole” without
`explanation. Ex. C (Civil Minutes, E-Z Up Case, Dkt. 96), at 1.
`III. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
` A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) as of the effective filing
`date of the ’040 Patent would have had a degree in the mechanical arts or a related
`discipline and at least two years of experience in the design or analysis of
`mechanical devices, fabricated frames, and/or kinematic linkages, though additional
`work experience could substitute for a formal degree, and vice versa.
`IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`Claim construction is a matter of law. Markman v. Westview Instruments,
`Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 388-91 (1996). Claim terms are viewed from the perspective of
`a POSITA. “[T]he person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim
`term 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.” Phillips
`v. AHW Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The same term in the same
`patent is presumed to carry the same meaning. Aug. Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd.,
`655 F.3d 1278, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The question for the Court is how the person
`of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim terms in the context of the
`specification and prosecution history. Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC,
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-01072-PSG-ADS
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 29
`
`

`

`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 94 Filed 05/26/20 Page 12 of 29 Page ID #:952
`
`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
`
`
`669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`There “are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee clearly
`sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee
`disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during
`prosecution.” Id. To be a lexicographer, the “patentee must clearly set forth a
`definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” Id.
`(quotation omitted).
`V. CONSTRUCTION OF THE DISPUTED TERMS
`A. The claim term “center pole” should be construed to mean a
`“centrally-disposed, long, slender object”.
`
`Claim Term
`“center pole”
`(claim 1)
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`Plaintiff’s Construction
`centrally-disposed, long,
`Centrally disposed element for
`slender object
`stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof
`i.
`The Court should adopt Defendants’ construction.
`Independent claim 1 of the ’040 Patent recites “a center pole used for
`stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof when pitching a tent.” Dkt. 1-1 (’040 Patent),
`2:14-16. For several reasons a POSITA would understand the “center pole” portion
`of this phrase to mean a “centrally-disposed, long, slender object.” First, the ’040
`Patent uses “center” consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning—in the middle.
`The specification describes center pole ribs 30 connecting the center pole 50 to each
`of the side poles 10, such that the center pole 50 is equidistant from each of the side
`poles. Id., 2:64-3:1. Caravan’s proposal likewise captures the fact that the “center
`pole” is “[c]entrally disposed”. Dkt. 90-1, at 1.
`Second, the intrinsic record confirms that “pole” means “long, slender
`object”. The only disclosure related in the specification is that the center pole 50
`“has a simple construction” and connects to each of the center pole ribs 30 as shown
`in Figures 3 and 4. Dkt. 90-1 (’040 Patent), 2:64-65, 4:2-3, Figs. 3, 4. Claim 1 also
`references both “center pole” and “side poles”. A presumption exists “that the same
`terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-01072-PSG-ADS
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 29
`
`

`

`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 94 Filed 05/26/20 Page 13 of 29 Page ID #:953
`
`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 unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the
`terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims.” Fin Control Sys.
`Pty., Ltd. v. OAM, Inc., 265 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither the
`specification nor prosecution history indicate that “pole” should carry a different
`meaning when used in “center pole” versus “side poles.” Thus, “pole” should be
`given the same meaning wherever it is used in the claims and regardless of what
`descriptive terms come before it.
`For both the center and side “pole,” the patent uses the term to refer to a long,
`slender object. When referring to the “center pole” for prior art frames, the ’040
`Patent depicts Element 6, which is a long, slender object (see the center image,
`below). The same is true when the patent identifies the “center pole 50” in the
`preferred embodiment of the alleged invention; namely, it is a long, slender object
`(see the left-most image below). The applicant did not use a different term to
`describe this feature of the depicted frames, opting instead for the same term in both
`instances. While the “center pole 6” in the prior art frame is longer than the “center
`pole 50” shown in Figures 3 and 4, both are still long, slender objects.
`The same is true with respect to the patent’s treatment of the word “pole” as
`used in “center pole” and “side poles”. As a preliminary matter, the words “center”
`and “side” denote the location of the pole, not additional structure or modification of
`the pole. Further, both the “center pole 50” and “side poles 10” are long and slender
`(compare the left-most and right-most images, below). While the “side poles” are
`longer than the “center pole,” in both instances the poles have an identifiable length.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-01072-PSG-ADS
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 29
`
`

`

`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 94 Filed 05/26/20 Page 14 of 29 Page ID #:954
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Center pole 50
`(embodiment) Figure 4
`
`Center pole 6
`(prior art) Figure 2
`
`Side poles 10
`Figure 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The prosecution history likewise supports Defendants’ construction. During
`prosecution, the examiner stated that Lynch taught a center pole 50. Ex. A, at 52.
`The applicant, however, never distinguished the structure of the Lynch center pole.
`Thus, the apex portion 50 of Lynch, shown in Lynch’s Figure
`2 (excerpted to the right) as a long, slender piece, is a “center
`pole” that closely resembles the preferred embodiment’s
`center pole (’040 Patent, Element 50).2
`Third, extrinsic evidence support’s Defendants’
`construction. Common dictionaries at the time of the alleged invention define a pole
`as “a long, cylindrical, often slender piece of wood, metal, etc.,” Ex. D (Webster’s
`Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (1996)), and “a long,
`slender, usually cylindrical object (as a length of wood),” Ex. E (Merriam-Webster’s
`Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition (2000)). The ’040 Patent depicts such a long
`and slender object, with the distinction that it need not be cylindrical.
`
`2 The prosecution history also supports Defendants’ position because the applicant
`amended claim 1 as follows: “a center pole [used] constructed for stretching and
`sustaining a tent’s roof when [pitching] a tent is pitched with the tent frame.” Ex. A.
`The applicant explained that while not amended in view of the prior art, the
`amendment was designed to “more particularly point out and distinctly claim the
`present invention.” Id. In other words, the center pole of the invention is not just
`used to stretch and sustain the roof, it must be constructed (or built) in a manner that
`carries out that purpose. This fact reinforces the point that a “pole” must be a “pole”
`and not some amorphous element “for” stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof.
`- 9 -
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-01072-PSG-ADS
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 29
`
`

`

`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 94 Filed 05/26/20 Page 15 of 29 Page ID #:955
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii.
`Plaintiff’s proposal is wrong.
`Caravan proposes that the Court construe “center pole” as a “[c]entrally
`disposed element for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof”. Dkt. 90-1, at 2.
`Preliminarily, Caravan’s attempt to eliminate “pole” is an attempt to broaden the
`claim to cover a flat disk—far beyond the scope of the ordinary meaning of “pole”.
`For example, in its infringement contentions against Walmart, Caravan identified a
`flat disk that is wider than it is long as the claimed “center pole”:
`
`
`
`
`
`Dkt. 78-3, at 38. Defendants, of course, do not argue that Caravan’s infringement
`theories should govern during the claim construction process. But while “a trial
`court should certainly not prejudge the ultimate infringement analysis by construing
`claims with an aim to include or exclude an accused product or process, knowledge
`of that product or process provides meaningful context for the first step of the
`infringement analysis claim construction.” Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich
`& Bradsby Co., 442 F.3d 1322, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`Caravan bases its construction on various intrinsic record cites and the claim
`construction materials from the E-Z Up Case. In the E-Z Up Case, Caravan relied
`on Figures 3 and 4 to argue that the applicant acted as its own lexicographer. Ex. B,
`at 20-21. According to Caravan, the applicant allegedly “used the term ‘center pole’
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`CASE NO. 8:19-CV-01072-PSG-ADS
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 29
`
`

`

`
`Case 8:19-cv-01072-PSG-ADS Document 94 Filed 05/26/20 Page 16 of 29 Page ID #:956
`
`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
`
`
`to refer generally to a central element.” Id. at 21.
`This is incorrect. “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must clearly set
`forth a definition of the disputed claim term, and clearly express an intent to define
`the term.” GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed.
`Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted). Yet the ’040 Patent does not contain any “words or
`expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction” broadening “pole” to any
`“element,” and Caravan has thus far pointed to none. Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am.
`Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2002). To the contrary, as shown above, the
`term is used consistently to describe both the prior art and preferred embodiment.
`Caravan argued in the E-Z Up Case that limiting “center pole” to something
`requiring a “pole” excluded the only embodiment of the patent. Ex. B, at 21. That
`too is incorrect. As the prior discussion reveals (see supra, §V.A.i), all examples of
`“center pole” in the ’040 Patent depict a centrally-disposed, long, slender object—in
`other words, a centrally-disposed pole. Construing this term according to
`Defendants’ proposal does not exclude an embodiment from the scope of the claims.
`Caravan’s proposal would also render a portion of claim 1 meaningless.
`Claim 1 recites: “a center pole constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof
`when a tent is pitched with the tent frame …” Replacing “center pole” with
`Caravan’s construction renders the “for stretching and sustaining language”
`superfluous: “… a [c]entrally disposed element for stretching and sustaining a tent’s
`roof constructed for stretching and sustaining a tent’s roof …”
`Caravan’s proposed construction cannot be correct because constructions
`should not render additional phrases in claims meaningless. See Stumbo v. Eastman
`Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Nor should they render a
`term—such as “pole”—meaningless by replacing it with a nonce term like
`“element.” See HZNP Meds. LLC v. Acavis Labs. UT, Inc., 940 F.3d 680, 692 (Fed.
`Cir. 2019) (explaining that reading a term out of a claim is “contrary to the well-
`established principle that claim language should not be treated as meaningless”
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BR