IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL NO. 6:21-CV-00544-ADA
`
`C&M OILFIELD RENTALS, LLC
`D/B/A C-MORE ENERGY SERVICES,
` Plaintiff
`
`-v-
`
`APOLLO LIGHTING SOLUTIONS
`INC.,
` Defendant and
`
`CLEANTEK INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`Defendant and
`counterclaim plaintiff
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER AND MEMORANDUM
`
`The Court considered the Parties’ claim construction briefs (Dkt. Nos. 54, 64,1 65, 55, 66,
`
`69, 70) and provided preliminary constructions in advance of the Markman hearing. After further
`
`considering the arguments at the Markman hearing, the Court adopts its preliminary constructions
`
`to be its final constructions and enters those final constructions now.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,976,016
`
`Plaintiff C&M Oilfield Rentals, LLC (“C&M”) asserts U.S. Patent No. 10,976,016 (the
`
`“’016 Patent”) against Apollo Lighting Solutions, Inc. (“Apollo”) and Cleantek Industries, Inc.
`
`(“Cleantek”) (collectively “Defendants”). The ’016 Patent has the title “Elevated structure-
`
`mounted lighting system.” The ’016 Patent generally discloses “[a]n improved elevated structure-
`
`mounted lighting system” that is “used on drilling rigs.” ’016 Patent at abstract.
`
`1 Replacement Brief.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Ensign
`Exhibit 1009 - 1 of 19
`
`

`

`The ’016 Patent realized that prior art crown-mounted lighting systems typically had fixed
`
`lighting systems that were costly, inefficient, and burdensome to install. Id. at 1:17-39. Typically,
`
`once designed for a particular type of rig, the lighting systems are not able to be adapted for use
`
`on other types of rigs. Id.
`
`Thus, the ’016 Patent improves on existing light systems by disclosing a modular structure-
`
`mounted lighting system that “may accommodate any style or design of crown section of a drilling
`
`rig and may be mounted on a pole or independent mount system.” Id. at 1:43-51. Claim 1 captures
`
`this concept and recites:
`
`1. A modular lighting system mounted on a rig, the modular lighting system
`comprising:
`a plurality of light units, each light unit separately attached to a crown deck of
`the rig, and each light unit comprising:
`a mounting pole;
`a light fixture comprising one or more lights; and
`a bracket configured to attach the mounting pole to the crown deck of the rig.
`
`Id. at 7:30-39.
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,111,761
`
`Cleantek filed its counterclaim against C&M for infringement of U.S. Patent No.
`
`11,111,761 (“’761 Patent”). The’761 Patent has the title “Drilling rig with attached lighting system
`
`and method.” The ’761 Patent generally discloses “[a]n attachable lighting system for a drilling
`
`rig.” ’761 Patent at abstract.
`
`The ’761 Patent realized that drilling operations typically relied on “mobile lighting
`
`arrangements on vehicles” or “manually adding or providing impromptu lighting arrangements”
`
`to provide lighting during low hours of daylight. Id. at 1:38-46. These solutions were “inadequate
`
`and not readily adaptable to systematic visibility improvements in appropriate locations around a
`
`drilling rig.” Id. at 1:47-49. Thus, the ’761 Patent discloses a system and method for addressing
`
`these shortcomings. Claim 1 recites:
`
`
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Ensign
`Exhibit 1009 - 2 of 19
`
`

`

`1. A method of providing lighting to a drilling rig site comprising, attaching at
`least one light fixture directly to the crown of a drilling rig on each of at least
`two sides of the crown, wherein the light fixture contains a fixed or removable
`light fixture attachment connecting the at least one light fixture to the crown,
`and wherein the drilling rig includes secondary containment.
`
`Id. at 4:9-15.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`Claim Construction Generally
`
`The general rule is that claim terms are generally given their plain-and-ordinary meaning.
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Azure Networks, LLC v.
`
`CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014), vacated on other grounds, 575 U.S. 959, 959
`
`(2015) (“There is a heavy presumption that claim terms carry their accustomed meaning in the
`
`relevant community at the relevant time.”). The plain and ordinary meaning of a term is the
`
`“meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time
`
`of the invention.” Philips, 415 F.3d at 1313.
`
`The “only two exceptions to [the] general rule” that claim terms are construed according
`
`to their plain and ordinary meaning are when the patentee (1) acts as his/her own lexicographer or
`
`(2) disavows the full scope of the claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). To act as
`
`his/her own lexicographer, the patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim
`
`term,” and “clearly express an intent to define the term.” Id.
`
`“Like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO and the
`
`inventor understood the patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. “Distinguishing the claimed invention
`
`over the prior art during prosecution indicates what a claim does not cover.” Spectrum Int’l, Inc.
`
`v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d 1372, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The doctrine of prosecution disclaimer
`
`precludes a patentee from recapturing a specific meaning that was previously disclaimed during
`3
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ensign
`Exhibit 1009 - 3 of 19
`
`

`

`prosecution. Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “[F]or
`
`prosecution disclaimer to attach, our precedent requires that the alleged disavowing actions or
`
`statements made during prosecution be both clear and unmistakable.” Id. at 1325–26.
`
`Accordingly, when “an applicant’s statements are amenable to multiple reasonable interpretations,
`
`they cannot be deemed clear and unmistakable.” 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725
`
`F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`“Although the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed claim
`
`language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally
`
`be read into the claims.” Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1988). “[I]t is improper to read limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the
`
`specification—even if it is the only embodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication in the
`
`intrinsic record that the patentee intended the claims to be so limited.” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v.
`
`Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “‘less significant than the intrinsic record
`
`in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
`
`(quoting C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Technical
`
`dictionaries may be helpful, but they may also provide definitions that are too broad or not
`
`indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Expert testimony also may be helpful,
`
`but an expert’s conclusory or unsupported assertions as to the meaning of a term are not. Id.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Ensign
`Exhibit 1009 - 4 of 19
`
`

`

`III. LEGAL ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Term #1: “crown deck”
`
`Pat. 10,976,016
`Term
`“crown deck”
`
`Claims 1, 2, 16, 17,
`19, 22, 23, 29
`
`
`
`C&M’s Proposal
`
`Apollo’s Proposal
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning: “the
`portion of the crown on which a
`person can walk and including any
`associated handrail”
`
`“Crown deck” means the “crown”
`and not limited to (i) the portion of
`the crown on which a person can
`walk and/or (ii) any associated
`handrail.
`
`First, the Court finds that “crown” is the collection of structures at the uppermost portion
`
`of a drilling rig. This construction derives from the patentee’s explicit, intrinsic definition for
`
`crown: “the uppermost portion of the drilling rig, also referred to as the ‘crown’ of the rig.” ’016
`
`Patent at 1:15-17, 2:30-31 (“the crown 110, or top, of a drilling rig”); see also Section III(E), infra
`
`(explaining similar construction for “crown” as used in the ’761 Patent).
`
`Next, the Court finds that a “crown deck” is a portion within the crown. Specifically, the
`
`“crown deck” is the deck within the crown. Both parties’ proposals agree that a deck includes a
`
`walking surface. C&M’s proposal excludes support structures from the deck, such as a support
`
`beam. The Court finds that the term “deck” ordinarily includes both the walking surface and its
`
`supporting structures.
`
`The parties dispute whether the handrail is part of the deck. A deck does not necessarily
`
`need to include a handrail, but if the handrail is present, then the handrail forms part of the deck
`
`because the specification explicitly refers to “the handrail of the crown deck.” Id. at 6:3, 7:1-2.
`
`Other references to “the crown deck and handrails” in the specification do not change the Court’s
`
`opinion because, in context, the Court finds this type of language used to emphasize the handrails,
`
`not to suggest some boundary separating the crown deck and handrails.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Ensign
`Exhibit 1009 - 5 of 19
`
`

`

`The Court rejects Defendants’ argument that “crown” is used interchangeably with “crown
`
`deck.” The ’016 Patent defines the “crown” to generally refer to the “uppermost portion” or “the
`
`top of a drilling rig.” Id. at 1:14-15, 2:31. This crown contains multiple structures, such as the
`
`crown block and the crown deck. Dkt. 64 at 6. Defendant’s argument primarily relies on the ’016
`
`Patent’s relabeling of element 110 as both a “crown” and a “crown deck.” Compare ’016 Patent
`
`at 2:25-31, with id. at Figure 3; see also id. at Figure 1 (showing a crown 110 with many different
`
`structures at the top or uppermost portion). However, this one-off labeling oddity does not override
`
`the explicit definition of “crown” as encompassing more than just the “deck,” and the rest of the
`
`’016 Patent does not interchange “crown” with “crown deck.” Moreover, Defendants’ proposal
`
`would not make sense if “crown” was interchanged with “crown deck.” After interchanging the
`
`terms, Defendants’ proposal would read, “the ‘crown deck’ [is] not limited to (i) the portion of the
`
`crown deck on which a person can walk and/or (ii) any associated handrail,” which results in a
`
`circular, unhelpful construction that says the crown (deck) is not limited to a portion of itself
`
`without offering any useful limitation.
`
`Therefore, the Court finds that a “crown” is the collection of structures at the uppermost
`
`portion of a drilling rig, and the “crown deck” is a collection of structures within the crown that
`
`includes a walking surface, parts supporting the walking surface, and any associated handrail.
`
`B.
`
`Term #2: “mounting pole”
`
`Pat. 10,976,016 Term
`“mounting pole”
`
`Claims 1, 17, 19, 22, 23
`
`C&M’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning:
`“elongated structure for
`mounting where the length of
`the structure far exceeds the
`width”
`
`Apollo’s Proposal
`“support post”
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ensign
`Exhibit 1009 - 6 of 19
`
`

`

`Both the words “mounting” and “pole” are words that have ordinary, well-understood
`
`meanings, and the ’016 Patent does not redefine them or use them in a context that requires a
`
`particular construction. When used together, the words “mounting pole” refers to a pole used for
`
`mounting something.
`
`The Court rejects C&M’s proposal for requiring that “the length of the structure far exceeds
`
`the width.” A pole can be cut shorter and still remain a pole, even if its length no longer far exceeds
`
`the width as proposed.
`
`The Court likewise rejects Apollo’s proposal that “mounting pole” be construed as a
`
`“support post.” This “support post” proposal overlooks the requirement for a mounting pole to
`
`mount something. For example, two poles leaning against opposite sides of a wall act as “support
`
`posts” because they support the wall against tilting over in either direction. But if these leaning
`
`poles do not have anything mounted on them, they are not “mounting” poles. Moreover, the Court
`
`sees no reason to change the word “pole” to “post,” and such a change offers no clarity to the jury.
`
`C.
`
`Term #3: “bracket”
`
`Pat. 10,976,016 Term
`“bracket”
`
`Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 15, 19
`
`
`C&M’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning,
`which includes a component
`or components connecting
`one part to another or holding
`a part
`
`Apollo’s Proposal
`“an intermediate component
`or components for attaching
`one part to another part.”
`
`
`
`The parties’ dispute for “bracket” is two-fold: (i) whether the component(s) must be
`
`“intermediate,” as Apollo proposes, and (ii) whether the use of a “bracket” is limited to “attaching
`
`one part to another part,” as Apollo proposes, or also includes “holding a part,” as C&M proposes.
`
`First, the Court finds that a bracket need not be an “intermediate” component. The ’016
`
`Patent certainly shows a bracket used as an intermediate component between other parts. E.g.,
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Ensign
`Exhibit 1009 - 7 of 19
`
`

`

`’016 Patent at Figure 6, 3:5-11. But prior to assembly as an intermediate component in a final
`
`product, a bracket is still sold as an individual part known as a “bracket.” A hardware store will
`
`still advertise a stand-alone bracket for sale as a “bracket,” well before the bracket is assembled as
`
`an intermediate component in a final product.
`
`Second, the Court finds that a bracket may hold another part. The specification states that
`
`“bracket 300 comprises a top mount plate 320 and a top rail clamp 330.” Id. at 3:9-10. Clamping
`
`is a form of tightly holding. Figures 9A-9F show a bracket holding the light fixture.
`
`Therefore, the Court finds that a bracket is a component or components connecting one
`
`part to another or holding a part.
`
`D.
`
`Term #4: “attached,” “connected,” and “coupled”
`
`Pat. 10,976,016 Term
`“attached”
`Claims 1, 16, 17, 22, 23, 29
`
`“connected”
`Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 24
`
`“coupled”
`Claims 9, 23, 25, 26
`
`C&M’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning,
`which includes direct and
`indirect attachment,
`connection, and coupling.
`The terms “attached,”
`connected,” and “coupled”
`are used interchangeably and
`have the same meaning in the
`context of the ’016 Patent
`
`
`
`Apollo’s Proposal
`The terms “attached,”
`connected,” and “coupled”
`are used interchangeably and
`should be given their
`respective ordinary and
`customary meanings, which
`are likewise interchangeable.
`
`The parties agree that these terms are all interchangeable and dispute only whether to
`
`instruct the jury that these terms include both “direct and indirect” attachment. Courts repeatedly
`
`construed “coupled” to include indirect attachment. E.g., Bradford Co. v. Conteyor N. Am., Inc.,
`
`603 F.3d 1262, 1270-71 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The Court finds it helpful to make this indirect
`
`possibility explicit to a jury.
`
`Therefore, the Court finds that “attached,” “connected,” and “coupled” are given their plain
`
`and ordinary meanings, which include direct and indirect attachment, connection and coupling,
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Ensign
`Exhibit 1009 - 8 of 19
`
`

`

`and the terms “attached,” “connected,” and “coupled” are used interchangeably and have the same
`
`meaning in the context of the ’016 Patent.
`
`E.
`
`Term #5: “crown”
`
`Pat. 11,111,761 Term
`“crown”
`
`Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14, 15,
`16, 19
`
`
`C&M’s Proposal
`“the structural assembly of
`sheaves or pulleys with
`surrounding frame at the top
`of the derrick or mast”
`
`Apollo’s Proposal
`“crown” should be given its
`ordinary
`and
`accustomed
`meaning, i.e., the top of a
`drilling rig including a base
`and an outer frame structure
`including handrails.
`
`
`
`In the oil rig context, “crown” is a term of art that refers to the collection of structures at
`
`the uppermost portion of a drilling rig. See Section III(A), supra.
`
`“The parties agree ‘crown’ should be construed to reference something at ‘the top of the
`
`the[/a] drilling rig.’” Dkt. 55 at 2. The Court finds that the parties’ remaining dispute results from
`
`the fact that “crown” is not defined in the industry with any further specificity. The ’016 Patent
`
`claims priority to March 2018, less than two years from the ’761 Patent’s claimed priority date of
`
`August 2016. The ’016 Patent defines a crown as “the uppermost portion of the drilling rig.” ’016
`
`Patent at 1:15-17, 2:30-31 (“the crown 110, or top, of a drilling rig”). No evidence or definition
`
`supports a finding that the “crown” explicitly includes or excludes sheaves, pulleys, frame, base,
`
`and/or handrails. Instead, POSITAs use the term “crown” loosely to refer to the general collection
`
`of structures at the uppermost portion of a drilling rig. It is the location of the collection of
`
`structures at the top of an oil rig, not the presence of the specific components disputed by the
`
`parties, that defines a crown. For example, the collection of structures at the top of an oil is the
`
`“crown” regardless of whether it includes handrails. The evidence submitted by the parties shows
`
`that in a particular deployment, a “crown” may include or exclude sheaves, pulleys, frame, base,
`
`
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Ensign
`Exhibit 1009 - 9 of 19
`
`

`

`and/or handrails, not that a “crown” is defined as requiring the inclusion or exclusion of sheaves,
`
`pulleys, frame, base, and/or handrails.
`
`Therefore, the Court finds that a “crown” is the collection of structures at the uppermost
`
`portion of a drilling rig.
`
`F.
`
`Term #6: “light fixture attachment”
`
`Apollo’s Proposal
`a “support post.”
`
`Pat. 11,111,761 Term
`“light fixture attachment”
`
`Claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 17
`
`
`
`C&M’s Proposal
`Means plus function.
`
`Function: “connecting the at
`least one light fixture to the
`crown”
`
`Structure: as shown in
`Figures 1B, 2, and 3, a
`singular, solid component
`with rectangular indentation
`at one end where the
`rectangular indentation
`engages or interacts with the
`crown
`
`C&M argues that “light fixture attachment” should be construed as a means-plus-function
`
`term. “[T]he use of the word “means” in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption
`
`that § 112, para. 6 applies. . . . [T]he failure to use the word ‘means’ also creates a rebuttable
`
`presumption—this time that § 112, para. 6 does not apply.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792
`
`F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, the Court applies the rebuttable presumption against
`
`construing “attachment” as a means-plus-function term. See Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp., 28 F.4th
`
`1360 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (providing exemplary application of the rule from Williamson).
`
`C&M argues that the presumption against means-plus-function interpretation is overcome
`
`because the term fails to recite any definite structure. The Court disagrees. The Court finds that
`
`the term “attachment” is merely broad, not functional. An “attachment” is any attached
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Ensign
`Exhibit 1009 - 10 of 19
`
`

`

`component. See Dkt. 66 at exhibits 10-11 (defining “attachment”). It contains the structural
`
`requirement of being attached. In context, the light fixture attachment must be attached to the light
`
`fixture. Thus, this term is not devoid of structure and not construed as a means-plus-function term.
`
`Apollo argues that “support post” and “light fixture attachment” are used interchangeably
`
`in the ’761 Patent. The Court rejects this proposal because “support post” is a construction
`
`completely untethered to the words “light fixture,” and Apollo offers no reason why the “light
`
`fixture” should be excluded from the final construction.
`
`Therefore, the Court finds that a “light fixture attachment,” is any component attached to
`
`the light fixture.
`
`G.
`
`Term #7: “secondary containment”
`
`Pat. 11,111,761 Term
`“secondary containment”
`
`Claims 1, 11
`
`
`
`C&M’s Proposal
`“a structure or device capable
`of holding or keeping an
`object within its limits that
`does not provide the primary
`means of containment or
`securement”
`
`Apollo’s Proposal
`“secondary containment”
`should be construed as
`additional structures or
`devices, e.g., safety nets
`and/or safety cables, to
`prevent things from dropping
`off or falling from a rig.
`
`C&M’s brief identifies two areas of dispute: (i) whether “secondary containment” may
`
`provide “the primary means of securement,” and (ii) whether the construction should include
`
`examples of “secondary containment,” as proposed by Apollo. Dkt. 55 at 9. There is also a third,
`
`unarticulated dispute: (iii) what action is being contained? The Court addresses these in reverse
`
`order.
`
`As to the issue (iii) what action is being contained, the Court agrees that the action being
`
`contained is things dropping off or falling from a rig. ’761 Patent at 3:53-60 (“so that nothing can
`
`drop off or fall from the unit.”). This proposal is consistent with the ’761 Patent’s concern
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Ensign
`Exhibit 1009 - 11 of 19
`
`

`

`regarding items falling from the crown of the oil rig. C&M’s proposal is too broad because it
`
`encompasses containing or securing items from moving within the crown.
`
`As to the issue (ii) whether the construction should include examples, C&M’s cited cases
`
`do not explicitly permit or prohibit examples in constructions, and Apollo offers no cases at all.
`
`The Federal Circuit “warned against confining the claims to those embodiments,” but Apollo’s
`
`non-exclusive examples included by the use of “e.g.,” does not confine the construction to any
`
`embodiments. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Here, the Court
`
`excludes the examples because they may potentially mislead the jury into thinking examples
`
`automatically satisfy the claim element without considering the full construction.
`
`As to the issue (i) whether “secondary containment” may provide “the primary means of
`
`securement,” the Court finds that the parties are in agreement. C&M argues that something
`
`“secondary” cannot be primary, which makes sense. Apollo argues that “secondary” means
`
`“additional.” This is a distinction without a difference because, in context, “additional” means in
`
`addition to something primary. The Court adopts C&M’s proposed structure of clarifying what
`
`that something is. For the reasons in the previous paragraph, the Court finds that secondary
`
`containment must not be the primary means of preventing an object from dropping off or falling
`
`from a rig.
`
`Therefore, the Court finds that “secondary containment” means a structure or device that
`
`prevents an object from dropping off or falling from a rig and does not provide the primary means
`
`of preventing that object from dropping off or falling from a rig.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Ensign
`Exhibit 1009 - 12 of 19
`
`

`

`H.
`
`Term #8 “attaching at least one light fixture directly to the crown of a
`
`drilling rig on each of at least two sides of the crown” and “at least one light fixture
`
`attached directly to the crown on each of at least two sides”
`
`Pat. 11,111,761
`Term
`“attaching at least one
`light fixture directly
`to the crown of a
`drilling rig on each of
`at least two sides of
`the crown”
`Claim 1
`
`light
`least one
`“at
`fixture
`attached
`directly to the crown
`on each of at least two
`sides”
`Claim 11
`
`
`C&M’s Proposal
`
`Apollo’s Proposal
`
`This phrase (and the terms
`therein) should be given their
`ordinary and accustomed
`meanings, i.e., attaching two
`or more light fixtures directly
`to the crown, where the light
`fixtures are attached on two
`different sides of the crown.
`
`• attaching / attached:
`ordinary and accustomed
`meaning.
`light fixture: ordinary and
`accustomed meaning.
`• directly: ordinary and
`accustomed meaning
`• crown: see proposed
`construction above.
`• sides: ordinary and
`accustomed meaning.
`
`•
`
`“light fixture” means “the component
`containing the light source”
`“directly” means “with nothing in
`between”
`“crown: same as above
`
`In context, the entire limitation
`means:
`“attaching at least one singular
`component containing the light source
`to the structural assembly of sheaves
`or pulleys with surrounding frame at
`the top of the derrick or mast, with
`nothing in between, on each of at
`least two sides of the structural
`assembly of sheaves or pulleys with
`surrounding frame at the top of the
`derrick or mast”
`(claim 1)
`
`“at least one singular component
`containing the light source attached to
`the structural assembly of sheaves or
`pulleys with surrounding frame at the
`top of the derrick or mast, with
`nothing in between, on each of at
`least two sides”
`(claim 11)
`
`
`
`The Court begins by applying the general rule that the words in these phrases should have
`
`their plain and ordinary meaning. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. Nothing in either parties’ briefs
`
`convinces the Court to rule otherwise.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Ensign
`Exhibit 1009 - 13 of 19
`
`

`

`
`
`Therefore, the Court finds that the words in this claim element are given their plain and
`
`ordinary meaning, except for terms otherwise construed in this opinion.
`
`I.
`
`Term #9: “wherein the light fixture contains a fixed or removable light
`
`fixture attachment connecting the [at least] one light fixture to the crown”
`
`Pat. 11,111,761 Term
`“wherein
`the
`light fixture
`contains a fixed or removable
`light
`fixture
`attachment
`connecting the [at least] one
`light fixture to the crown”
`
`Claims 1, 11
`
`C&M’s Proposal
`“light fixture attachment”:
`same as above
`“light fixture”: same as above
`“wherein the light fixture
`contains a fixed or removable
`light fixture attachment
`connecting the [at least] one
`light fixture to the crown”:
`Indefinite.
`
`
`
`•
`
`•
`
`Apollo’s Proposal
`This phrase (and the terms
`therein) should be
`given their ordinary and
`accustomed
`meanings.
`light fixture: ordinary and
`•
`accustomed meaning
`fixed: ordinary and
`accustomed meaning
`removable: ordinary and
`accustomed meaning
`light fixture attachment:
`see proposed
`construction above.
`• connecting: ordinary and
`accustomed meaning,
`same as in ’016 Patent
`• crown: see proposed
`construction above.
`
`•
`
`The Court applied canon of construction to construe terms to preserve their validity and
`
`made every effort to keeps this term definite consistent with the meanings of the words that it uses.
`
`After considering various possibilities, the Court could not do so and finds this term indefinite.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’761 Patent includes the following limitations: “attaching at least one light
`
`fixture directly to the crown,” and “the light fixture contains a fixed or removable light fixture
`
`attachment connecting the at least one light fixture to the crown.” Claim 11 contains corresponding
`
`limitations.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Ensign
`Exhibit 1009 - 14 of 19
`
`

`

`The ’761 Patent is relatively short. The relevant portion of specification states:
`
`The light fixtures described herein (29) are shown attached directly to the crown,
`in this instance visible on three sides. The light fixture (101 and 203) as shown in
`this embodiment also in FIG. 1B and in perspective view in FIG. 2 is held by a
`bracket (102 and 204) which permits the light fixture to swivel both in a horizontal
`and vertical orientation. And in this embodiment, the light fixture is connected to
`the crown directly through the light fixture attachment (103 and 202).
`
`‘’761 Patent at 3:40-48. The following annotated version of figures 1B and 2 inform the Court’s
`
`analysis:
`
`
`
`
`
`Fundamentally, the problem is that the claims and detailed description do not describe what
`
`is pictured. Figure 1B and figure 2 show three discrete components: a light fixture, a bracket, and
`
`the light fixture attachment. The Court understands that the light fixture attachment directly
`
`contacts the “crown,” which is omitted from these drawings. These figures make it clear that the
`
`“light fixture” is not “attached directly to the crown,” as described in the specification because the
`
`light fixture is indirectly coupled through the bracket and through the light fixture attachment to
`
`the crown. In view of this, a POSITA would not be able to determine if the patentee intended for
`
`the word “directly” to mean “indirectly” because the detailed description does not describe what
`
`is illustrated and because these words have opposite meanings.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Ensign
`Exhibit 1009 - 15 of 19
`
`

`

`The Court attempted to overcome this problem and preserve the validity of the claim by
`
`construing “light fixture” to extend and include the “light fixture attachment” and the “bracket”
`
`shown in figures 1B and 2. When drawing the “light fixture” box to encompass the light fixture
`
`attachment, the light fixture is directly attached to the crown. This box is consistent with the claim
`
`limitation that “the light fixture contains a fixed or removable light fixture attachment,” and
`
`dependent claim 12. But the Court cannot save the claim in this way because the specification
`
`states, “The light fixture (101 and 203) as shown . . . is held by a bracket (102 and 204) which
`
`permits the light fixture to swivel.” ’761 Patent at 3:42-45. Thus, the specification makes clear
`
`that the light fixture in the figures is only the part held by the bracket and does not extend to include
`
`both the bracket and the light fixture attachment. In view of these competing descriptions and
`
`illustrations, the Court cannot determine what the inventors intended to include in its claim.
`
`Thus, a POSITA cannot determine 1) what it means for the light fixture to be “directly”
`
`connected to the crown when the claim also requires a light fixture attachment that connects the
`
`light fixture to the crown and 2) what it means for the light fixture to contain a fixed or removable
`
`light fixture attachment. The Court finds this term indefinite.
`
`J.
`
`Term #10: “attached around the perimeter of the crown”
`
`Pat. 11,111,761 Term
`
`C&M’s Proposal
`
`Apollo’s Proposal
`
`around
`“attached
`perimeter of the crown”
`Claim 14
`
`the
`
`“attached on the outermost
`boundary of every side of the
`crown”
`
`the outer
`“attached along
`frame structure of the crown
`and not limited to specific
`sides”
`
`The Court agrees with C&M proposal for two reasons. First, a perimeter is the outer
`
`
`
`
`
`boundary of a two-dimensional object. Apollo proposes that the perimeter is the “outer frame
`
`structure.” Apollo’s proposal applies the definition of “perimeter” to certain cases where the outer
`
`
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Ensign
`Exhibit 1009 - 16 of 19
`
`

`

`frame structure forms the outermost structure, but C&M’s proposal of “outermost boundary”
`
`applies generally to all cases, even when a “frame” of the crown does not form the outermost
`
`boundary.
`
`
`
`Second, the Court finds that something attached “around” the perimeter should generally
`
`encircle the perimeter. In cases where the perimeter is a rectangle or other polygon,2 the claim
`
`requires attaching devices to every side of polygon. The Court reject’s Apollo’s proposal because
`
`it allows for attaching something “along” just one side of a polygon—this is not attaching
`
`something “around” that polygon.
`
`Therefore, “attached around the perimeter of the crown” means “attached on the outermost
`
`boundary of every side of the crown.”
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons described herein, the Court adopts the below as its final constructions.
`
`Pat. 10,976,016 Term
`
`The Court’s Final Constructions
`
`“crown deck”
`
`A “crown” is the collection of structures at the uppermost
`
`Claims 1, 2, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23,
`
`portion of a drilling rig, and the “crown deck” is a collection of
`
`29
`
`structures within the crown that includes a walking surface,
`
`parts supporting the walking surface, and any associated
`
`handrail.
`
`
`
`“mounting pole”
`
`A “mounting pole”
`
`is a pole used
`
`for mounting
`
`Claims 1, 17, 19, 22, 23
`
`
`something. Both “mounting” and “pole” have their plain and
`
`ordinary meanings.
`
`
`2 Neither party addresses circular perimeters, so the Court does not address it either.
`17
`
`
`
`Petitioner Ensign
`Exhibit 1009 - 17 of 19
`
`

`

`Pat. 10,976,016 Term
`
`The Court’s Final Constructions
`
`“bracket”
`
`A component or components connecting one part to another or
`
`Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 15, 19
`
`holding a part.
`
`“attached”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning, which includes direct and indirect
`
`Claims 1, 16, 17, 22, 23, 29
`
`attachment,
`
`connection,
`
`and
`
`coupling.
`
`“connected”
`
`
`
`Clai