United States District Court, D. Delaware
G. Connolly, III and Ryan P. Newell, CONNOLLY GALLAGHER LLP,
Wilmington, DE; Jeffrey S. Standley, James Lee Kwak (argued),
and F. Michael Speed, Jr., STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP, Dublin,
OH. Attorneys for Plaintiff.
W. Shaw, Karen E. Keller, and Nathan R. Hoeschen, SHAW KELLER
LLP, Wilmington, DE; Douglas J. Kline (argued), Srikanth K.
Reddy (argued), and Molly R. Grammel (argued), GOODWIN
PROCTER LLP, Boston, MA; Naomi Birbach, GOODWIN PROCTER LLP,
New York, NY; Yuval H. Marcus, Cameron S. Reuber, Matthew L.
Kaufman, and Lori L. Cooper, LEASON ELLIS LLP, White Plains,
NY. Attorneys for Defendants.
ANDREWS, US. DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is the issue of claim construction of multiple
terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 8, 854, 572 ("the '572
patent"), 8, 854, 595 ("the '595 patent"),
9, 629, 287 ("the '287 patent"), 9, 173, 325
("the '325 patent"), 9, 173, 322 ("the
'322 patent"), 8, 773, 633 ("the '633
patent"), 9, 285, 108 ("the '108 patent")
and 9, 313, 917 ("the '917 patent"). The Court
has considered the Parties' Joint Claim Construction
Brief. (D.I. 124). The Court issued tentative constructions
of seven of the ten disputed terms before oral argument.
(D.I. 146). The Court heard oral argument on September 19,
2018. (D.I. 147).
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) (citation
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,
979-80 (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.... [This 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. "[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
Teva Pharm. 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)
March 14, 2017, Manufacturing Resources International, Inc.
("Plaintiff) filed a patent infringement action. The
defendants are Civiq Smartscapes, LLC, Civiq Holdings, LLC,
Comark, LLC, and Comark Holdings, LLC (collectively,
"Defendants")- The patents in suit are U.S. Patent
Nos. 8, 854, 572 ("the '572 patent"), 8, 854,
595 ("the '595 patent"), 9, 629, 287 ("the
'287 patent"), 9, 173, 325 ("the '325
patent"), 9, 173, 322 ("the '322 patent"),
8, 773, 633 ("the '633 patent"), 9, 285, 108
("the '108 patent") and 9, 313, 917 ("the
'917 patent"). All the patents in suit concern
systems and methods for cooling large electronic displays to
enable outdoor use year-round regardless of temperature.
parties dispute terms in claim 1 of the '595 Patent.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A system for cooling an electronic display having a
posterior display surface and contained within a
housing, the system comprising:
a constricted convection plate placed posterior to the
posterior display surface;
two side panels placed adjacent to the constricted convection
plate and the posterior display surface, defining a
constricted convection channel having an entrance
and an exit; and a fan placed to draw air from outside the
housing through the constricted convection channel.
('595 Patent, claim 1) (disputed terms italicized).
parties dispute a term in claims 4 and 7 of the '322
Patent. The following claim of the '322 Patent is
4. A liquid crystal display (LCD) comprising: a liquid
a backlight assembly behind the liquid crystal stack and
a printed circuit board (PCB) having front and back sides;
a plurality of LEDs mounted on the front side of the PCB;
a posterior surface on the rear side of the PCB;
a constricted convection place placed behind and
substantially parallel with the posterior surface of
the PCB; and
a fan positioned to draw air between the constricted
convection plate and the posterior surface.
('322 Patent, claim 4) (disputed term italicized).
parties dispute terms in claims 1 and 8 of the '572
Patent. The following claim of the '572 Patent is
method for cooling an electronic display having a rear
surface, comprising the steps of:
placing a substantially planar surface adjacent to the
rear surface of the electronic display to define a
gap between the planar surface and the electronic display;
placing a closed loop of circulating gas around the
forcing a circulating gas around the closed loop;
forcing cooling air through said gap.
('572 Patent, claim 1) (disputed terms italicized).
parties dispute terms in claim 18 of the '287 Patent.
Claim 18 reads as follows:
18. An electronic display assembly ...