UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF VERMONT
`
`VERMONT SAFETY
`DEVELOPMENTS
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HEAD SPORT GmbH,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 2:23-cv-00089
`
`HEAD SPORT GMBH’S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
`OF DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`Pursuant to the entered Revised Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order (Dkt. 32),
`
`Defendant Head Sport GmbH (“Head”) hereby provides to Plaintiff Vermont Safety
`
`Developments, LLC (“VSD”) its proposed claim term constructions for the terms
`
`identified by the parties in their Identifications of Claim Terms Requiring Construction
`
`for United States Patent No. 7,523,953 (“the ’953 patent). On March 8, 2024, VSD
`
`served Updated Preliminary Infringement Contentions, withdrawing assertions of
`
`infringement of claims 30, 31, and 34-38 and asserting infringement of only claims 53-
`
`56 and 58-60 of the ’953 patent. Head reserves the right to modify or supplement its
`
`list of proposed terms, proposed constructions, and/or citations of intrinsic and
`
`extrinsic evidence based on any further amendments or supplements to VSD’s
`
`infringement contentions and/or discovery responses. Head further reserves the right
`
`to make such amendments or supplements to its non-infringement and invalidity
`
`1
`
`Page 1 of 15
`
`HEAD EXHIBIT 1014
`
`
`DISTRICT OF VERMONT
`
`VERMONT SAFETY
`DEVELOPMENTS
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HEAD SPORT GmbH,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 2:23-cv-00089
`
`HEAD SPORT GMBH’S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
`OF DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`Pursuant to the entered Revised Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order (Dkt. 32),
`
`Defendant Head Sport GmbH (“Head”) hereby provides to Plaintiff Vermont Safety
`
`Developments, LLC (“VSD”) its proposed claim term constructions for the terms
`
`identified by the parties in their Identifications of Claim Terms Requiring Construction
`
`for United States Patent No. 7,523,953 (“the ’953 patent). On March 8, 2024, VSD
`
`served Updated Preliminary Infringement Contentions, withdrawing assertions of
`
`infringement of claims 30, 31, and 34-38 and asserting infringement of only claims 53-
`
`56 and 58-60 of the ’953 patent. Head reserves the right to modify or supplement its
`
`list of proposed terms, proposed constructions, and/or citations of intrinsic and
`
`extrinsic evidence based on any further amendments or supplements to VSD’s
`
`infringement contentions and/or discovery responses. Head further reserves the right
`
`to make such amendments or supplements to its non-infringement and invalidity
`
`1
`
`Page 1 of 15
`
`HEAD EXHIBIT 1014
`
`
`
`contentions based on, without limitation, the constructions propounded by VSD,
`
`intrinsic and extrinsic evidence identified by VSD, and/or information learned in the
`
`course of discovery or by other means. Head reserves the right to rely on any intrinsic
`
`and extrinsic evidence identified by VSD in the disclosure of proposed constructions,
`
`or to supplement such evidence to the extent called for in response to any specific
`
`positions taken by VSD in its proposed constructions.
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`No.
`
`Claim
`Number(s)
`
`Claim Term Requiring Construction
`
`Proposed Construction
`
`1
`
`53, 58
`
`a first release
`
`2
`
`53, 58
`
`release logic
`
`
`
`3
`
`A lateral toe release, i.e., a release of the ski boot
`from the toe piece of the binding in a transverse
`direction
`substantially perpendicular
`to
`the
`longitudinal axis of the ski.
`
`Otherwise, indefinite under § 112.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`See, e.g., ’953 patent at 7:28-36; 8:34-50; 9:32-10-46;
`11:44-65; 13:13-42; 14:8-13; 14:20-25; 14:53-63.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Head reserves the right to offer the expert
`testimony of Dr. Maury Hull in accordance with
`the Revised Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order
`(Dkt. 32) and may provide other extrinsic evidence
`in response to VSD’s proposed construction and
`supporting evidence, including a November 24,
`2017 email from David Dodge to Robert Stanzl et
`al., explaining that the asserted patent does not
`involve lateral heel release.
`
`Means plus function term subject to § 112, ¶ 6.
`Thus, this limitation must be construed to cover the
`corresponding structure, material, or acts described
`
`Page 3 of 15
`
`
`
`in the specification. Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space
`Systems/Loral, Inc., 324 F.3d 1308, 1318, (Fed. Cir.
`judgment of no
`(affirming summary
`2003)
`infringement because accused device did not
`perform
`the
`function of means-plus-function
`limitation as described in the specification); Vulcan
`Eng'g Co. v. Fata Aluminium, Inc., 278 F.3d 1366,
`1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (functional terms are
`“construed to cover the corresponding structure,
`material, or acts described in the specification and
`equivalents thereof,” such that “[i]nfringement is
`found literally if the claimed function is performed
`by either the structure described in the patent or an
`equivalent of that structure”).
`
`Although this term does not use the word “means,”
`it should be construed as means-plus-function
`terms because it does not “‘recite sufficiently
`definite structure’ or else recite[] ‘function without
`reciting sufficient structure for performing that
`function.’” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792
`F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (internal
`citations omitted). The term “is a “nonce” term, as
`in Williamson
`(“element”,
`“mechanism”,
`“module”) and does not, standing alone, connote
`any particular structure. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at
`1350; See also, Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v. Int’l Trade
`Comm’n, 899 F.3d 1291, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`Function: laterally releasing the toe of the ski boot
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 15
`
`
`
`from the ski binding.
`
`Structure: A secondary toe release secured to a
`trigger platform, pivotable substantially only in one
`direction, wherein a triggerable latch mechanism is
`also pivotably secured to a trigger platform and
`includes a latch that will release a catch on the
`secondary toe release under a threshold-exceeding
`force, allowing the secondary toe release to pivot
`freely to release the toe of the ski boot.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`See, e.g., ’953 patent at 9:9-45, 9:65-10:46, 12:34-
`13:12; 14:14-20.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Head reserves the right to offer the expert
`testimony of Dr. Maury Hull in accordance with
`the Revised Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order
`(Dkt. 32) and may provide other extrinsic evidence
`in response to VSD’s proposed construction and
`supporting evidence.
`
`A release condition occurs when a load applied to
`the ski binding exceeds a certain magnitude,
`requiring a release of the ski boot from the ski
`binding.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`3
`
`53
`
`release condition
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 15
`
`
`
`4
`
`53, 58
`
`first axis
`
`5
`
`53, 58
`
`second axis
`
`’953 patent at 13:13-21.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Head reserves the right to offer the expert
`testimony of Dr. Maury Hull in accordance with
`the Revised Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order
`(Dkt. 32) and may provide other extrinsic evidence
`in response to VSD’s proposed construction and
`supporting evidence.
`
`Indefinite under § 112
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Head reserves the right to offer the expert
`testimony of Dr. Maury Hull in accordance with
`the Revised Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order
`(Dkt. 32) and may provide other extrinsic evidence
`in response to VSD’s proposed construction and
`supporting evidence.
`
`Indefinite under § 112
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Head reserves the right to offer the expert
`testimony of Dr. Maury Hull in accordance with
`the Revised Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order
`(Dkt. 32) and may provide other extrinsic evidence
`in response to VSD’s proposed construction and
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 15
`
`
`
`6
`
`53, 58
`
`first loading
`
`7
`
`53, 58
`
`second loading
`
`8
`
`53
`
`assess, relative to a first axis, a first
`loading internal to the ski system caused
`by an external loading applied to the ski
`system;
`
`7
`
`supporting evidence.
`
`Indefinite under § 112
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Head reserves the right to offer the expert
`testimony of Dr. Maury Hull in accordance with
`the Revised Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order
`(Dkt. 32) and may provide other extrinsic evidence
`in response to VSD’s proposed construction and
`supporting evidence.
`
`Indefinite under § 112
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Head reserves the right to offer the expert
`testimony of Dr. Maury Hull in accordance with
`the Revised Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order
`(Dkt. 32) and may provide other extrinsic evidence
`in response to VSD’s proposed construction and
`supporting evidence.
`
`Indefinite under § 112
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Head reserves the right to offer the expert
`testimony of Dr. Maury Hull in accordance with
`the Revised Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order
`(Dkt. 32) and may provide other extrinsic evidence
`
`Page 7 of 15
`
`
`
`9
`
`53
`
`assess, relative to a second axis spaced
`from said first axis and substantially
`parallel to said first axis, a second
`loading internal to the ski system caused
`by the external loading;
`
`10
`
`53
`
`determine whether or not the release
`condition is occurring as a function of
`both of the first loading and the second
`loading
`
`11
`
`53, 58
`
`a second release
`
`
`
`8
`
`in response to VSD’s proposed construction and
`supporting evidence.
`
`Indefinite under § 112
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Head reserves the right to offer the expert
`testimony of Dr. Maury Hull in accordance with
`the Revised Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order
`(Dkt. 32) and may provide other extrinsic evidence
`in response to VSD’s proposed construction and
`supporting evidence.
`
`Indefinite under § 112
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Head reserves the right to offer the expert
`testimony of Dr. Maury Hull in accordance with
`the Revised Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order
`(Dkt. 32) and may provide other extrinsic evidence
`in response to VSD’s proposed construction and
`supporting evidence.
`
`A second lateral toe release, i.e., a second release
`of the ski boot from the toe piece of the binding in
`a transverse direction substantially perpendicular
`to the longitudinal axis of the ski.
`
`Otherwise, indefinite under § 112.
`
`Page 8 of 15
`
`
`
`12
`
`53, 58
`
`an attenuated release
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`See, e.g., ’953 patent at 7:28-36; 8:34-50; 9:32-10-46;
`11:44-65; 13:13-42; 14:8-13; 14:20-25; 14:53-63.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Head reserves the right to offer the expert
`testimony of Dr. Maury Hull in accordance with
`the Revised Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order
`(Dkt. 32) and may provide other extrinsic evidence
`in response to VSD’s proposed construction and
`supporting evidence, including a November 24,
`2017 email from David Dodge to Robert Stanzl et
`al., explaining that the asserted patent does not
`involve lateral heel release.
`
`A lateral toe release wherein the torque exceeds a
`lower release threshold or level.
`
`Otherwise, indefinite under § 112.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`See, e.g., ’953 patent at 7:28-36; 8:34-50; 9:32-10-46;
`11:44-65; 13:13-42; 14:8-13; 14:20-25; 14:53-63.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Head reserves the right to offer the expert
`testimony of Dr. Maury Hull in accordance with
`the Revised Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 15
`
`
`
`13
`
`54
`
`said first release is at least 20% less than
`said second release
`
`Indefinite under § 112
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`(Dkt. 32) and may provide other extrinsic evidence
`in response to VSD’s proposed construction and
`supporting evidence.
`
`14
`
`55, 59
`
`wherein said first release is a first release
`torque about a tibial axis of a skier . . .
`and said second release is a second
`release torque about a tibial axis . . . .
`
`Head reserves the right to offer the expert
`testimony of Dr. Maury Hull in accordance with
`the Revised Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order
`(Dkt. 32) and may provide other extrinsic evidence
`in response to VSD’s proposed construction and
`supporting evidence.
`
`Indefinite under § 112
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Head reserves the right to offer the expert
`testimony of Dr. Maury Hull in accordance with
`the Revised Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order
`(Dkt. 32) and may provide other extrinsic evidence
`in response to VSD’s proposed construction and
`supporting evidence.
`
`15
`
`56, 60
`
`wherein said first release torque is at
`least 20% less than said second release
`torque
`
`Indefinite under § 112
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Head reserves the right to offer the expert
`testimony of Dr. Maury Hull in accordance with
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 15
`
`
`
`16
`
`58
`
`said release logic set to activate said first
`release substantially only when
`
`11
`
`the Revised Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order
`(Dkt. 32) and may provide other extrinsic evidence
`in response to VSD’s proposed construction and
`supporting evidence.
`
`Means plus function term subject to § 112, ¶ 6.
`Thus, this limitation must be construed to cover the
`corresponding structure, material, or acts described
`in the specification. Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space
`Systems/Loral, Inc., 324 F.3d 1308, 1318, (Fed. Cir.
`2003)
`(affirming summary
`judgment of no
`infringement because accused device did not
`perform
`the
`function of means-plus-function
`limitation as described in the specification); Vulcan
`Eng'g Co. v. Fata Aluminium, Inc., 278 F.3d 1366,
`1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (functional terms are
`“construed to cover the corresponding structure,
`material, or acts described in the specification and
`equivalents thereof,” such that “[i]nfringement is
`found literally if the claimed function is performed
`by either the structure described in the patent or an
`equivalent of that structure”).
`
`Although this term does not use the word “means,”
`it should be construed as means-plus-function
`terms because it does not “‘recite sufficiently
`definite structure’ or else recite[] ‘function without
`reciting sufficient structure for performing that
`function.’” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792
`F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (internal
`citations omitted). The term “is a “nonce” term, as
`
`Page 11 of 15
`
`
`
`“mechanism”,
`(“element”,
`in Williamson
`“module”) and does not, standing alone, connote
`any particular structure. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at
`1350; See also, Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v. Int’l Trade
`Comm’n, 899 F.3d 1291, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`Function: laterally releasing the toe of the ski boot
`from the ski binding substantially only under
`certain loading conditions.
`
`Structure: A secondary toe release secured to a
`trigger platform, pivotable substantially only in one
`direction, wherein a triggerable latch mechanism is
`also pivotably secured to a trigger platform and
`includes a latch that will release a catch on the
`secondary toe release substantially only under a
`torque exceeding a threshold or level, allowing the
`secondary toe release to pivot freely to release the
`toe of the ski boot.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`See, e.g., ’953 patent at 9:9-45, 9:65-10:46, 12:34-
`13:12; 14:14-20.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Head reserves the right to offer the expert
`testimony of Dr. Maury Hull in accordance with
`the Revised Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order
`(Dkt. 32) and may provide other extrinsic evidence
`in response to VSD’s proposed construction and
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 15
`
`
`
`17
`
`58
`
`a first loading, internal to the ski system
`along or about a first axis and caused by
`an external loading applied to the ski
`system
`
`supporting evidence.
`
`Indefinite under § 112
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Head reserves the right to offer the expert
`testimony of Dr. Maury Hull in accordance with
`the Revised Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order
`(Dkt. 32) and may provide other extrinsic evidence
`in response to VSD’s proposed construction and
`supporting evidence.
`
`18
`
`58
`
`exceeds a first defined level and has a
`first defined sense
`
`Indefinite under § 112
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Head reserves the right to offer the expert
`testimony of Dr. Maury Hull in accordance with
`the Revised Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order
`(Dkt. 32) and may provide other extrinsic evidence
`in response to VSD’s proposed construction and
`supporting evidence.
`
`19
`
`58
`
`a second loading, internal to the ski
`system along or about a second axis and
`caused by the external loading
`
`Indefinite under § 112
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`Head reserves the right to offer the expert
`testimony of Dr. Maury Hull in accordance with
`the Revised Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order
`(Dkt. 32) and may provide other extrinsic evidence
`
`
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 15
`
`
`
`20
`
`58
`
`exceeds a second defined level and has a
`second defined sense
`
`Indefinite under § 112
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`in response to VSD’s proposed construction and
`supporting evidence.
`
`Head reserves the right to offer the expert
`testimony of Dr. Maury Hull in accordance with
`the Revised Stipulated Discovery Schedule Order
`(Dkt. 32) and may provide other extrinsic evidence
`in response to VSD’s proposed construction and
`supporting evidence.
`
`Dated: April 23, 2024
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Aaron L. Parker
`
`David M. Pocius
`PAUL FRANK + COLLINS P.C.
`P. O. Box 1307
`Burlington, VT 05402-1307
`(802) 658-2311
`dpocius@pfclaw.com
`
`&
`
`Aaron L. Parker (pro hac vice)
`Anthony J. Berlenbach (pro hac vice)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 15
`
`
`
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Telephone: (202) 408-4000
`aaron.parker@finnegan.com
`anthony.berlenbach@finnegan.com
`
`Counsel for Head Sport GmbH
`
`15
`
`Page 15 of 15
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
