United States: District Court Erred In Its Claim Construction By Importing Limitations Unsupported By The Intrinsic Record

In In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera Patent Litigation, No. 14-1110 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2, 2015), the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in applying and elaborating on its claim constructions for five claim terms and vacated the district court's entry of SJ of noninfringement.

Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG ("Papst") owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,399 ("the '399 patent") and 6,895,449 ("the '449 patent"), both titled "Flexible Interface for Communication Between a Host and an Analog I/O Device Connected to the Interface Regardless the Type of the I/O Device." The '399 and '449 patents have similar written descriptions and are directed to interface devices designed to facilitate the transfer of data between a host computer and connected data devices, such as digital cameras. The devices known at the time of invention had limitations in that they often required tradeoffs between data transfer and flexibility. The '399 and '449 patents overcame these limitations by employing an interface device that, when communicating with the host, would appear to be a type of device with which the host was already familiar (such as a hard drive) and for which it already possessed driver software. The interface device would then also translate the communications from the host device into a form understandable by the connected data device.

Papst asserted its patents against a variety of defendants who manufacture cameras. The district court construed the disputed claim terms in an initial claim construction order and then subsequently issued a modified claim construction order after additional briefing. The district court then ruled on eight motions for SJ, during which the court clarified some of its constructions, and in which the court treated the defendants as two distinct groups—one group consisted of Hewlett-Packard Co. and the other group consisted of all of the other defendants ("the Camera Manufacturers"). The district court entered findings of noninfringement for all defendants. Papst appealed the district court's rulings on the basis that five of the terms were construed incorrectly.

The Federal Circuit addressed each of the five claim terms in turn, after first noting that because the district court relied only on the intrinsic record, the review was de novo. The Federal Circuit agreed with Papst with regard to all five claim terms and vacated the judgment.

"As explained supra, the described advance over the prior art was the elimination of the need for special drivers to be placed on the host computer by instead having the host computer use a single, already-present, fast, reliable driver to communicate with the interface and, through it, with the data device, which need not be of a particular type. Nothing about that advance suggests exclusion of a permanent attachment of such an interface to the data device—a construction that is 'unmoored from, rather than aligned with' what is described as the invention's advance." Slip op. at 13 (quoting World Class Tech. Corp. v. Ormco Corp., 769 F.3d 1120, 1124 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).

The Federal Circuit first considered the term "interface device," found in the preamble of both the '399 and '449 patents, which the district court construed to be limited to "stand-alone devices" by noting that the data transmit/receive device must be a separate device from the claimed interface device. The district court clarified during the SJ proceedings that the interface device could not be a permanent part of either the data transmit device or the host device, or be permanently located within the housing of either of those devices under its construction. The Federal Circuit first rejected the Camera Manufacturers' argument that it should not reach this issue because the district court's SJ ruling did not depend on this construction. The Court disagreed, noting several instances in which the district court cited to and relied on the construction of "interface device" in reaching its SJ ruling. The Federal Circuit then held that "interface device" as used in the '399 and '449 patents was not limited to a "stand-alone device." The Court found that "[n]either the claim language nor the rest of the intrinsic record supports the district court's exclusion of a device that performs the required interface functions and is installed permanently inside the housing of a particular data device." Slip op. at 12. The Federal Circuit found the district court's reliance on separate claim language misplaced, noting that nothing in the claim language, written description, or prosecution history forbids a single instance of the claimed interface device being permanently attached to a particular data device.

The second claim term the Federal Circuit considered on appeal was "second connecting device," present in both patents, which the district court construed as meaning "a physical plug or socket for permitting a user readily to attach and detach the interface device with a plurality of dissimilar data transmit/receive devices." Id. at 15-16 (citation omitted). The district court again tied its construction of this claim term to its interpretation of interface device as being a stand-alone device. The Federal Circuit rejected this construction for the same reasons it rejected the first construction, noting that it saw "nothing to take that embodiment outside the reach of the usual rule that claims are generally not limited to features found in what the written description presents as mere embodiments, where the claim language is plainly broader." Id. at 16-17 (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)).

The third claim term considered by the Federal Circuit was "data transmit/receive device," which the district court construed as "a device that is capable of either (a) transmitting data to or (b) transmitting data to and receiving data from the host device when connected to the host device by the interface device." Id. at 17 (citation omitted). The Court rejected the district court's construction, finding that the data transmit/receive device need not be capable of communicating "when connected to the host device by the interface device." Id. at 19. The Court noted that the ordinary meaning of the claim term did not suggest a temporal constraint on the transferring data and that, to the extent some claim language may suggest such a restraint, the focus is on the communications between the interface device and the host computer, not between the data device and the host computer.

The fourth claim term considered by the Court was "virtual files" as used in the '399 patent, which the district court understood to be limited to files not physically stored on the interface device whose content is data originating from the data transmit/receive device. The district court similarly construed the phrase "simulating a virtual file system" in the '449 patent as "appearing to be a system of files, including a directory structure, that is not physically stored; rather, it is constructed or derived from existing data when its contents are requested by an application program so that it appears to exist as a system of files from the point of view of the host device." Id. at 21 (citation omitted). The primary question on appeal was whether the existing data from which the virtual files are constructed may already exist on the interface device when the host requests the virtual file. The Court found that "[n]othing in the claims or written description limits a 'virtual file' to one whose content is stored off the interface device, though it includes such files." Id. at 22. The Federal Circuit again turned to what the patent described as the advance over the prior art (using the host-native driver to obtain access to data) and reasoned that this advance did not depend on the specific physical memory units holding the data. Also, when considering the written description, the Court noted that while the examples described the organizational structure that the interface device conveys to the host, none mentions where the data physically reside.

The fifth term considered by the Federal Circuit was "input/output device customary in a host device" as used in the '399 patent, which the district court construed as a "data input/output device that was normally present within the chassis of most commercially available computers at the time of the invention." Id. at 25 (citation omitted). The Court also considered the term "storage device customary in a host device" as used in the '449 patent with the almost identical construction, except that the words "data input/output" are replaced with the word "storage." Id. (citation omitted). Though the Court found the claim language somewhat ambiguous, it found the written description was clear that the intended meaning of the claim language did not imply physical location within the computer chassis. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit found that the district court was incorrect in importing that limitation.

Accordingly, having overturned all five of the appealed claim constructions, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court's entry of final judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Judges: Taranto (author), Schall, Chen

[Appealed from D.D.C., Judge Collyer]

This article previously appeared in Last Month at the Federal Circuit, March 2015.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
22 Jan 2019, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

As part of Strafford Publications’ webinar series, Finnegan partners Shana Cyr and Mark Feldstein will provide essential updates on FDA practice and patent law relating to biologics and biosimilars.

27 Jan 2019, Other, Washington, DC, United States

Finnegan is a sponsor of the Association of Corporate Patent Counsel Winter Meeting. Finnegan partner Erika Arner will join the panel discussion “PTAB Review & Litigation.”

27 Jan 2019, Other, Florida, United States

Finnegan is a sponsor of the Association of Corporate Patent Counsel Winter Meeting. Finnegan partner Erika Arner will join the panel discussion “PTAB Review & Litigation.

 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions