United States District Court, D. Delaware
E. Farnan, Esq., RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.,
Wilmington, DE; Katharine L. Mowery, RICHARDS, LAYTON &
FINGER, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Lawrence J. Gotts, Esq.
(argued), LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Washington, D.C.; Saswat
Misra, Esq., LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Washington, D.C.;
Stephanie N. Grace, Esq., LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, San
Diego, CA; Anant K. Saraswat, Esq. (argued), LATHAM &
WATKINS LLP, Boston, MA. Attorneys for Plaintiff.
M. Katona, Esq., POLSINELLI PC, Wilmington, DE; Robert H.
Reckers, Esq. (argued), SHOOK, HARDY, & BACON LLP,
Houston, TX; Chrissie Guastello, Esq. (argued), SHOOK, HARDY,
& BACON LLP, Kansas City, MO. Attorneys for Defendants.
ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is the issue of claim construction of
multiple terms in U.S. Patent No. 5, 815, 488 ("the
'488 patent"). The Court has considered the
Parties' Joint Claim Construction Brief. (D.I. 71). The
Court heard oral argument on September 11, 2017. (D.I. 89).
filed this action on March 10, 2016, alleging infringement of
the '488 patent. (D.I. 1). The patent-in-suit claims a
method for allowing multiple remote locations to
simultaneously transmit data via a shared channel to a single
is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a
patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled
the right to exclude." Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
'"[T]here is no magic formula or catechism for
conducting claim construction.' Instead, the court is
free to attach the appropriate weight to appropriate sources
'in light of the statutes and policies that inform patent
law.'" Soft View LLC v. Apple Inc., 2013 WL
4758195, at *1 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2013) (quoting
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324) (alteration in
original). When construing patent claims, a court considers
the literal language of the claim, the patent specification,
and the prosecution history. Markman v. Westview
Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 977-80 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Of these
sources, "the specification is always highly relevant to
the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive;
it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed
term." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315.
words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning . . . [which 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, i.e., as of the
effective filing date of the patent application."
Id. at 1312-13 (citations omitted). "[T]he
ordinary meaning of a claim term is its meaning to [an]
ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent."
Id. at 1321. "In some cases, the ordinary
meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill
in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and
claim construction in such cases involves little more than
the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly
understood words." Id. at 1314.
court relies solely upon the intrinsic evidence-the patent
claims, the specification, and the prosecution history-the
court's construction is a determination of law. See
TevaPharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831, 841
(2015). The court may also make factual findings based upon
consideration of extrinsic evidence, which "consists of
all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history,
including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and
learned treatises." Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1317-19. Extrinsic evidence may assist the court in
understanding the underlying technology, the meaning of terms
to one skilled in the art, and how the invention works.
Id. Extrinsic evidence, however, is less reliable
and less useful in claim construction than the patent and its
prosecution history. Id.
claim construction is persuasive, not because it follows a
certain rule, but because it defines terms in the context of
the whole patent." Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa
'per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
It follows that "a claim interpretation that would
exclude the inventor's device is rarely the correct
interpretation." Osram GmbH v. Int'l Trade
Comm'n, 505 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS
'488 patent is directed to a method for enabling a
plurality of remote locations (or users) to share a channel
to simultaneously transmit data to a central location with a
high degree of immunity to channel impairments. Claim 2 is
representative and reads as follows:
2. A method for enabling a plurality of remote locations to
transmit data to a central location ...