Case 1:21-cv-01578-VEC Document 43 Filed 11/30/21 Page 1 of 28
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`Case No. 21-CV-1578 (VEC)
`
`Molo Design, Ltd.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-v-
`
`Chanel, Inc.
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT CHANEL, INC.’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Patent Owner Molo Design, Ltd. - Exhibit 2002
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01578-VEC Document 43 Filed 11/30/21 Page 2 of 28
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES .........................................................................................................1
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ..........................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`“supports” ................................................................................................................1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Summary of the Dispute ..............................................................................2
`
`Evidence Supporting Chanel’s Construction ...............................................3
`
`Response to Molo’s Arguments ...................................................................7
`
`B.
`
`“self-supporting” ......................................................................................................8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Summary of the Dispute ..............................................................................9
`
`Evidence Supporting Chanel’s Construction ...............................................9
`
`Response to Molo’s Arguments .................................................................10
`
`C.
`
`“flaccid” .................................................................................................................12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Summary of the Dispute ............................................................................12
`
`Evidence Supporting Chanel’s Construction .............................................12
`
`Response to Molo’s Arguments .................................................................15
`
`D.
`
`“operable” ..............................................................................................................15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Summary of the Dispute ............................................................................15
`
`Evidence Supporting Chanel’s Construction .............................................16
`
`Response to Molo’s Arguments .................................................................16
`
`E.
`
`“end panels” ...........................................................................................................17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Summary of the Dispute ............................................................................17
`
`Evidence Supporting Chanel’s Construction .............................................18
`
`Response to Molo’s Arguments .................................................................21
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`AGREED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ...........................................................................23
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................24
`
`i
`
`
`Patent Owner Molo Design, Ltd. - Exhibit 2002
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01578-VEC Document 43 Filed 11/30/21 Page 3 of 28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. v. Medtronic,
`265 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................6
`
`AFG Indus., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co.,
`239 F.3d 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2001)............................................................................................1, 22
`
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP,
`616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................4, 18
`
`In re Certain Mobile Devices With Multifunction Emulators,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1170, Initial Determination (ITC Mar. 16, 2021) ........................................16
`
`Comcast Cable Communs., LLC v. Promptu Sys. Corp.,
`838 Fed. App’x 551 (Fed. Cir. 2021)...................................................................................4, 18
`
`Default Proof Credit Card Sys. Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
`412 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................12
`
`Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc.,
`815 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................7, 22
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC,
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................15
`
`Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc.,
`256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................3
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................13
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ...........................................................................................................12, 14
`
`Neville v. Found. Constructors, Inc.,
`972 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2020)............................................................................................4, 18
`
`Nexstep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communs.,
`No. 19–cv–1031, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202726 (D. Del. Oct. 30, 2020) ...............................6
`
`Niazi Licensing Corp. v. Boston Sci. Corp.,
`No. 17-cv-5094, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181611 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2019) .....................14, 15
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)....................................................................................1, 3, 7, 22
`
`ii
`
`
`Patent Owner Molo Design, Ltd. - Exhibit 2002
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01578-VEC Document 43 Filed 11/30/21 Page 4 of 28
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)........................................................................ passim
`
`Server Tech., Inc. v. Am. Power Conversion Corp.,
`No. 3:06-cv-00698, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49101 (D. Nev. Apr. 16, 2010)............................8
`
`Small v. Nobel Biocare USA, LLC,
`2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91387 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2011) ...................................................7, 22
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`574 U.S. 318 (2015) ...................................................................................................................1
`
`TQ Delta, LLC v. ADTRAN, Inc.,
`No. 14–cv–954, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153622 (D. Del. Sep. 9, 2019) ................................16
`
`TQ Delta, LLC v. ADTRAN, Inc.,
`No. 14–cv–954, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188640 (D. Del. Oct. 31, 2019) ...............................16
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 .......................................................................................................................12
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2004) ...........................................................10
`
`Oxford Compact English Dictionary (2nd ed. 2003) ...............................................................10, 16
`
`Webster’s II New College Dictionary (2001) ................................................................................16
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`Patent Owner Molo Design, Ltd. - Exhibit 2002
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01578-VEC Document 43 Filed 11/30/21 Page 5 of 28
`
`Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 12(b) and the Court’s Scheduling Order, Defendant
`
`Chanel, Inc. (“Chanel”) hereby submits its claim construction brief regarding the asserted claims
`
`of the patents-in-suit.1 For the reasons explained below, Chanel respectfully requests that the
`
`Court adopt Chanel’s constructions for disputed terms, plus the parties’ agreed constructions.
`
`I.
`
`LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A patent’s claims define the patentee’s rights. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574
`
`U.S. 318, 321 (2015). “When the parties present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a
`
`claim term, it is the court’s duty to resolve it.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech.
`
`Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also AFG Indus., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 239
`
`F.3d 1239, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“It is critical for trial courts to set forth an express
`
`construction of the material claim terms in dispute, in part because the claim construction
`
`becomes the basis of the jury instructions, should the case go to trial.”).
`
`The key principles that courts apply to determine the meaning of disputed claim terms are
`
`explained at length in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1311–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc). These principles are discussed in context throughout the remainder of Chanel’s brief.
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`A.
`
`“supports”
`
`Claim Term/Phrase
`“supports”2
`
`Chanel’s Construction
`“supporting panels that are
`different from the laminar
`panels that form the core”
`
`Molo’s Construction
`No construction necessary
`
`
`1 The asserted claims are: claims 1, 2, 5–7, 13, and 20–23 of U.S. Patent No. 7,866,366 (“’366
`patent”) (Dkt. 1–1); claims 21–23 of U.S. Patent No. 8,561,666 (“’666 patent”) (Dkt. 1–2);
`claims 1, 5, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,797,134 (“’134 patent) (Dkt. 1-4); and claims 2, 14, 18,
`19, 20, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,689,161 (“’161 patent”) (Dkt. 1–3).
`2 This term is recited in the following asserted claims: ’366 claims 1, 2, and 13.
`
`1
`
`
`Patent Owner Molo Design, Ltd. - Exhibit 2002
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01578-VEC Document 43 Filed 11/30/21 Page 6 of 28
`
`1.
`
`Summary of the Dispute
`
`Claim 1 of the ’366 patent claims an article of flexible furniture having three main
`
`structural elements: (1) a core formed from a plurality of laminar panels;3 (2) a pair of supports;
`
`and (3) a plurality of fasteners. The parties dispute whether the laminar panels and the supports
`
`are different structural elements (Chanel’s position), or whether the laminar panels themselves at
`
`each end of the core can be the supports (Molo’s position). Chanel proposes construing the claim
`
`term “supports” to clarify for the jury that the supports and the laminar panels that form the core
`
`are different structural elements. Molo proposes not issuing any construction, which would leave
`
`this claim interpretation issue unresolved for the jury.
`
`This dispute is relevant to the issue of infringement because the accused products used by
`
`Chanel do not have any supports connected to the laminar panels at each end of the core. Molo
`
`seeks to argue to the jury that the laminar panels themselves at each end of the accused product’s
`
`core constitute a pair of supports. See, e.g., Dkt. 1, ¶ 29; Decl. of Shannon L. Bjorklund Ex. 1.4
`
`But Molo’s infringement theory fails under a proper interpretation of the claims as proposed by
`
`Chanel.
`
`This dispute is also relevant to the issue of invalidity. For example, Molo seeks to argue
`
`to the jury that certain prior art, such as ICFF 2004 Softwall (image at Ex. 2), does not anticipate
`
`or render obvious the ’366 patent claims because the prior art lacks a pair of supports connected
`
`to the laminar panels at each end of the core. However, this argument fails if the Court adopts
`
`Molo’s broad interpretation wherein the laminar panels themselves can be “a pair of supports.”
`
`
`3 Laminar panels are thin panels that can be formed from paper or a non-woven material or a
`composite material. See ’366 claims 1, 6, 7, and 9.
`4 Exhibits attached to the declaration of Shannon L. Bjorklund will be designated as “Ex.”
`
`2
`
`
`Patent Owner Molo Design, Ltd. - Exhibit 2002
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01578-VEC Document 43 Filed 11/30/21 Page 7 of 28
`
`Accordingly, there is a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of this claim term that
`
`the Court must resolve. O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1361–63.
`
`2.
`
`Evidence Supporting Chanel’s Construction
`
`“In construing claims, the analytical focus must begin and remain centered on the
`
`language of the claims themselves.” Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., 256 F.3d
`
`1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The term “supports” is recited in independent claim 1 of the ’366
`
`patent, which reads as follows:
`
`1. An article of flexible furniture having a core formed from a plurality of
`laminar panels of a flaccid material and each panel having a pair of oppositely
`directed major faces, adjacent faces of said panels being inter-connected to
`provide a cellular structure upon movement of abutting faces away from each
`other, a pair of supports at opposite ends of said core and connected to
`respective ones of said faces, said supports being self-supporting to provide
`rigidity to said core whereby said supports may be moved apart to expand said
`cellular structure and extend the length of said core and flexible so as to be
`foldable into a tubular configuration about an axis parallel to said major faces,
`and a plurality of fasteners on each of said supports to secure said supports in
`said tubular configuration and to permit connection to an adjacent support of
`another similar article.
`
`’366 patent, at 7:12–26 (emphasis added).
`
`The language of claim 1 strongly supports Chanel’s construction. First, claim 1 recites an
`
`article of furniture having three main structural elements—“a core formed from a plurality of
`
`laminar panels,” “a pair of supports,” and “a plurality of fasteners”—whose descriptions are
`
`separated by commas in the claim language. Second, claim 1 states that the supports are
`
`“connected to respective ones of said faces,” which refers to faces of laminar panels of the core.
`
`Thus, the claim language makes clear that the supports are not themselves laminar panels of the
`
`core, but instead are different structural elements “connected to” laminar panels of the core.
`
`By listing “supports” and “laminar panels” separately and using the phrase “connected
`
`to,” claim 1 strongly indicates that the supports are distinct from the laminar panels that form the
`
`3
`
`
`Patent Owner Molo Design, Ltd. - Exhibit 2002
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01578-VEC Document 43 Filed 11/30/21 Page 8 of 28
`
`core. See Comcast Cable Communs., LLC v. Promptu Sys. Corp., 838 Fed. App’x 551, 553 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2021) (“By listing the elements separately and by using the word ‘coupled,’ claim 14
`
`strongly indicates the ‘speech recognition system’ is distinct from the ‘wireline node.’”); Neville
`
`v. Found. Constructors, Inc., 972 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“While the ‘protrusion’ and
`
`‘end plate’ structures must be connected in some fashion, the use of these two terms in a claim
`
`requires that they connote different meanings.”) (internal quotations omitted); Becton, Dickinson
`
`& Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Where a claim lists
`
`elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are
`
`‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention.”) (quoting Gaus v. Conair Corp., 363 F.3d
`
`1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Thus, the language of claim 1 supports Chanel’s construction,
`
`which confirms that the supports “are different from the laminar panels that form the core.”
`
`If the patentees wanted claim 1 to cover articles where the laminar panels at each end of
`
`the core were themselves “a pair of supports,” they could have written claim 1 to recite “the
`
`laminar panels at opposite ends of said core having a pair of supports” or “said core having a pair
`
`of supports.” But the patentees did not do so, and the actual language of claim 1 (“connected to”)
`
`does not support such an interpretation of the claim’s scope.
`
`“Other claims of the patent in question, both asserted and unasserted, can also be valuable
`
`sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Here,
`
`the language of the dependent claims of the ’366 patent provides further support for Chanel’s
`
`construction. Certain dependent claims, such as claims 6, 7, and 9, recite additional limitations
`
`on “said panels,” referring to the laminar panels of the core. Other dependent claims, such as
`
`claims 12–14, recite additional limitations on “said supports,” referring to the pair of supports.
`
`One dependent claim states, “said panels are formed from a non-woven material” (claim 7), and
`
`4
`
`
`Patent Owner Molo Design, Ltd. - Exhibit 2002
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01578-VEC Document 43 Filed 11/30/21 Page 9 of 28
`
`another dependent claim states “said supports are formed from a non-woven material” (claim
`
`13). The fact that there are separate dependent claims directed to “panels” and “supports”—and
`
`some reciting an identical further limitation—confirms that panels and supports are different
`
`structural elements, as recognized in Chanel’s proposed construction.
`
`In addition to the claim language, the remainder of a patent’s specification must also be
`
`considered as part of the claim construction analysis. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315–17. Here,
`
`while the specification does not expressly define the term “supports,” it consistently
`
`distinguishes between the supports and the core formed of laminar panels. For example, in the
`
`“Summary of the Invention” section, the specification distinguishes between supports and
`
`laminar panels and states that the supports are “connected to respective ones of the faces,” which
`
`refers to faces of laminar panels. See ’366 patent, at 1:66–2:7.
`
`Elsewhere, the specification assigns separate numbers to identify and distinguish between
`
`the core, the panels that form the core, and the supports. See ’366 patent, at 2:51–56 (“Referring
`
`therefore to FIG. 1, a partition 10 comprises a core 12 and a pair of supports 14, 16 at opposite
`
`ends of the core 12. As can best be seen from FIGS. 2 and 3, the core 12 is formed from a
`
`plurality of panels 18. The panels 18 each have a pair of oppositely-directed major faces 19, 20,
`
`and are formed from a flexible flaccid material.”) (emphasis added); id. at 3:42–46 (“The lateral
`
`extension of the supports 14, 16 beyond the core 12 provides marginal tabs that may be grasped
`
`to facilitate manipulation of the core without direct contact with the panels 18.”) (emphasis
`
`added); id. at 4:67–5:3 (“In the embodiment of FIG. 10, a pair of partitions 110 are arranged to
`
`5
`
`
`Patent Owner Molo Design, Ltd. - Exhibit 2002
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01578-VEC Document 43 Filed 11/30/21 Page 10 of 28
`
`be joined end-to-end in a manner similar to that shown in FIG. 6. The end panel 118d of the core
`
`112 is secured to supports 114, 116.”) (emphasis added).5
`
`Chanel does not contend that claim 1 of the ’366 patent should be limited to the examples
`
`in the specification, or that the specification contains an express disavowal of claim scope related
`
`to the term “supports.” However, it is relevant that the specification includes several examples
`
`that are consistent with Chanel’s proposed construction, and no examples that are consistent with
`
`Molo’s position that laminar panels of the core can be the “supports” recited in claim 1. “The
`
`construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s
`
`description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1316 (internal quotations omitted).6
`
`The prosecution history of the patent and any related patents may also be considered as
`
`part of the claim construction analysis. See id. at 1317; Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. v.
`
`Medtronic, 265 F.3d 1294, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, there is nothing in the ’366 patent’s
`
`prosecution history that is directly relevant to this claim construction dispute. However, in the
`
`prosecution history of the related ’161 patent, the patent examiner twice rejected an apparatus
`
`claim that did not recite supports as a distinct structural element from the core. See Ex. 7 (App.
`
`15/067,541, Feb. 28, 2017 Office Action), at 2 (“Claim 2 recites a freestanding wall. However,
`
`only the core is recited. As disclosed, end supports are required for the structure to be
`
`‘freestanding’. Such would be required to give utility to the structure. Further, the recitation of
`
`
`5 The specification includes additional examples differentiating between the supports and the
`core. See, e.g., ’366 patent, at 3:18–29, 4:39–42, 4:45–52.
`6 The Federal Circuit has “upheld a district court’s construction of a claim term having a negative
`limitation even in the absence of an express disavowal during prosecution or independent
`lexicography in the specification.” Nexstep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communs., No. 19–cv–1031,
`2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202726, at *17–18 (D. Del. Oct. 30, 2020) (citing Eko Brands, LLC v.
`Adrian Rivera Maynez Enters., Inc., 946 F.3d 1367, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).
`
`6
`
`
`Patent Owner Molo Design, Ltd. - Exhibit 2002
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01578-VEC Document 43 Filed 11/30/21 Page 11 of 28
`
`‘supporting ends’ in the absence of structure capable of providing such support further renders
`
`the claim indefinite.”); Ex. 6 (App. 15/067,541, Sep. 23, 2016 Office Action), at 2 (similar).
`
`Chanel’s proposed construction that distinguishes the supports from the laminar panels of the
`
`core is consistent with this patent examiner’s view that supports are a distinct structural element.
`
`In sum, Chanel’s proposed construction of “supports” is consistent with the intrinsic
`
`evidence and should be adopted to resolve a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of claim 1.
`
`3.
`
`Response to Molo’s Arguments
`
`Molo argues that no construction is necessary because the meaning of “supports” is clear
`
`from the plain language of the claim. Molo’s position invites legal error because, as explained
`
`above, there is a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of this claim term that must be
`
`resolved by the Court, not the jury. In this instance, failing to issue a construction, or issuing a
`
`“plain and ordinary meaning” construction, would not resolve the parties’ dispute and therefore
`
`would be improper. See Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc., 815 F.3d
`
`1314, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“During claim construction, the parties actively disputed the scope
`
`of the ‘portable’ and ‘mobile’ terms . . . . By determining only that the terms should be given
`
`their plain and ordinary meaning, the court left this question of claim scope unanswered, leaving
`
`it for the jury to decide. This was legal error.”); O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1362 (“When the parties
`
`present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim term, it is the court’s duty to
`
`resolve it.”); Small v. Nobel Biocare USA, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91387, at *51–52
`
`(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2011) (applying O2 Micro and rejecting patentee’s argument that the
`
`disputed claim term “indentation” is “clear on its face and requires no construction”).
`
`Molo criticizes Chanel’s construction because it includes the phrase “supporting panels,”
`
`which is not used in the ’366 patent. However, there is no requirement that a claim construction
`
`be comprised entirely of terms found in the patent. Even if Molo’s criticism were valid, which it
`
`7
`
`
`Patent Owner Molo Design, Ltd. - Exhibit 2002
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01578-VEC Document 43 Filed 11/30/21 Page 12 of 28
`
`is not, the solution is to omit the phrase “supporting panels” from the Court’s construction, not to
`
`avoid issuing any construction at all. The fundamental dispute is whether the “supports” are
`
`distinct structures from the laminar panels that form the core. If the Court wants to resolve this
`
`claim construction dispute without using the phrase “supporting panels,” the Court can adopt a
`
`modified construction, such as: “supports, which are not the laminar panels that form the core.”
`
`Molo also criticizes Chanel’s construction because it does not specify how the supports
`
`are different from the laminar panels that form the core. Again, this criticism sidesteps the
`
`fundamental dispute regarding whether the “supports” in claim 1 of the ’366 patent are distinct
`
`structural elements from the laminar panels that form the core. Chanel’s construction would
`
`resolve this dispute by clarifying that the supports and the laminar panels are different. There is
`
`no need to further specify all of the ways in which the supports and the laminar panels could be
`
`different. The point is that they are not the same, and therefore the laminar panels themselves
`
`cannot be the supports in the context of claim 1 of the ’366 patent.7 If the Court wants to resolve
`
`this claim construction dispute without using the term “different,” the Court can adopt a
`
`modified construction, such as: “supports, which are not the laminar panels that form the core.”
`
`B.
`
`“self-supporting”
`
`Claim Term/Phrase
`“self-supporting”8
`
`Chanel’s Construction
`“able to stay upright and resist
`collapse without being
`supported by something else”
`
`Molo’s Construction
`“having sufficient rigidity to
`resist collapse of the core”
`
`
`7 Server Tech., Inc. v. Am. Power Conversion Corp., No. 3:06-cv-00698, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`49101 (D. Nev. Apr. 16, 2010), which Molo cites, is easily distinguishable and has no persuasive
`value. For example, the court in Server Tech declined “at this time” to construe a disputed claim
`term because “the parties’ disagreement over the meaning of this term is unclear.” Id. at *70.
`Here, the parties’ claim construction dispute is clear and therefore must be resolved by the Court.
`8 This term is recited in the following asserted claims: ’366 claim 1.
`
`8
`
`
`Patent Owner Molo Design, Ltd. - Exhibit 2002
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01578-VEC Document 43 Filed 11/30/21 Page 13 of 28
`
`1.
`
`Summary of the Dispute
`
`The parties’ dispute as to the term “self-supporting” further illustrates their differing
`
`interpretations of the term “supports,” described above. Claim 1 of the ’366 patent recites “a pair
`
`of supports at opposite ends of said core and connected to respective ones of said faces, said
`
`supports being self-supporting to provide rigidity to said core.” Chanel’s construction follows
`
`the meaning of this term: the supports must be able to support themselves (i.e., the supports) by
`
`staying upright and resisting collapse. Molo seeks to remove the “self” from “self-supporting,”
`
`which would introduce redundancy and lead to an awkward reading: “said supports being
`
`[having sufficient rigidity to resist collapse of the core] to provide rigidity to said core.”
`
`This dispute is relevant to the issue of infringement because the accused products used by
`
`Chanel do not have any supports connected to the laminar panels at each end of the core, and the
`
`laminar panels themselves are not sufficiently rigid to be able to stay upright and resist collapse
`
`without being supported by something else. See, e.g., Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 26, 30. Molo’s infringement
`
`theory fails under a proper interpretation of the claim language.
`
`2.
`
`Evidence Supporting Chanel’s Construction
`
`The context of how the term “self-supporting” is used in ’366 claim 1, and the clear
`
`specification description, both support Chanel’s construction. The Federal Circuit has stated that
`
`the context in which the term is used in the claims is “highly instructive,” and the specification
`
`“is always highly relevant;” it is “[u]sually . . . dispositive,” and is “the single best guide to the
`
`meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314–15 (internal quotations omitted).
`
`Each time the word “self-supporting” is used in the ’366 patent’s specification, it refers to
`
`an object’s ability to support itself. The specification repeatedly describes the material of the
`
`“supports” sufficient to make them “self-supporting.” See, e.g., ’366 patent at 3:19–23 (“The
`
`supports 14 and 16 are made from a self-supporting material, typically a non woven felt material,
`
`9
`
`
`Patent Owner Molo Design, Ltd. - Exhibit 2002
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01578-VEC Document 43 Filed 11/30/21 Page 14 of 28
`
`which has a degree of flexibility but also has sufficient rigidity to resist collapse of the core
`
`12.”); ’366 at 5:3–6 (“The supports 114, 116 are made from a self-supporting material, which in
`
`this embodiment are preferably made from a rigid material such as a millboard.”). In each such
`
`example, the specification makes clear what was already obvious from the term itself: that for
`
`something to be self-supporting, it must support itself. Thus, Molo’s attempt to re-define a “self-
`
`supporting” support as a “support supporting the core” is contrary to the claim term, the
`
`specification, and the ordinary meaning, and should be rejected.
`
`The claim and specification also make clear that, in this context, providing “support”
`
`means to resist collapse on a vertical plane, i.e., to remain upright. See, infra. The purpose of the
`
`“self-supporting” supports is to maintain the article in an upright, vertical position. See, e.g., ’366
`
`at 3:60–63 (“With the partition 10 expanded, it has sufficient width to remain stable in a vertical
`
`position with the rigidity provided by the end supports 14 and 16.”). Thus, Chanel’s proposed
`
`construction is correct in both aspects: the term “self-supporting” means the supports are
`
`supporting themselves, and to do so in the context of these claims means to stay upright and
`
`resist collapse.
`
`Dictionary definitions of the term “self-supporting” are consistent with the intrinsic
`
`evidence described above. See Ex. 10 (Oxford Compact English Dictionary (2nd ed. 2003)) (self-
`
`supporting: “staying up or upright without being supported by something else”); Ex. 11
`
`(Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2004)) (self-supporting: “supporting itself
`
`or its own weight”).
`
`3.
`
`Response to Molo’s Arguments
`
`Molo offers two critiques of Chanel’s construction: (1) that Chanel’s construction uses a
`
`word not appearing in the specification, and (2) that Chanel’s construction supposedly conflicts
`
`10
`
`
`Patent Owner Molo Design, Ltd. - Exhibit 2002
`Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01578-VEC Document 43 Filed 11/30/21 Page 15 of 28
`
`with the specification because the core may also provide support for the “article of flexible
`
`furniture.” Neither argument is persuasive.
`
`As stated above, there is no requirement that a claim construction must consist entirely of
`
`words appearing in the specification. The concept described by Chanel’s construction—that the
`
`self-supporting supports are capable of remaining upright—appears throughout the specification.
`
`See, infra.
`
`Moreover, in incorrectly arguing that Chanel’s interpretation reads an embodiment out of
`
`the claims, Molo itself reads the “self” prefix out of “self-supporting.” Molo argues: “in certain
`
`embodiments, the material used for the core may itself be sufficiently rigid to resist collapse. . . .
`
`In such embodiments, the core itself could be ‘something else’ that also supports the article of
`
`flexible furniture and resists collapse.” Molo Br. (Dkt. 41)” at 7–8 (emphasis added). But
`
`Chanel never said there must be only one thing supporting “the article of flexible furniture”; it
`
`stated that, to be self-supporting, the supports must be able to support themselves without
`
`necessitating anything else. This is precisely what the claim language requires: “a pair of
`
`supports at opposite ends of said core and connected to respective ones of said faces, said
`
`supports being self-supporting to provide rigidity to said core.” Whether the core can support
`
`itself, or whether both the core and the pair of supports can provide support to the overall “article
`
`of flexible furniture,” is beside the point. For the claim language “said supports being self-
`
`supporting” to have meaning, it must mean that “said supports” support themselves, regardless of
`
`whether they also provide support to the core.
`
`In sum, Chanel’s construction is consistent with the claim language and the specification.
`
`Molo’s construction should be rejected, because it attempts to read the word “self” out of the
`
`claim and introduces redundancy.
`
`11
`
`
`Patent Owner Molo Design, Ltd. - Exhibit 2002
`Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-01578-VEC Document 43 File