Relying on a narrow reading of the plaintiff’s patent claims, based primarily upon inferences drawn from the patent specification, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s summary judgment finding of non-infringement. SafeTCare Mfg., Inc. v. Tele-made, Inc., Case No. 06-1535 (Fed. Cir., Aug. 3, 2007) (Gajarsa, J.).
SafeTCare brought a patent infringement action against Burke, alleging that Burke, Inc.’s TriFlex II product infringed SafeTCare’s patent, directed to a bariatric modular bed particularly suited for use by obese patients in hospitals. The patent discloses that its bed’s panels are "pushed" upwards and away by a motor. The district court’s Markman order construed the term "pushing force" in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, i.e., "a physical force applied in the direction away from the body exerting it."
The district court found that the Tri-Flex II operates by lifting the bed’s panels indirectly using a motor, through an actuator and a bracket, to pull the bed upwards. The district court determined, on summary judgment, that Burke did not infringe SafeTCare’s patent because the Tri-Flex II operates in "pull (exertion of a force towards itself), not in push (exertion of a force away from itself) as claimed." SafeTCare appealed.
SafeTCare argued that the Tri-Flex II panel’s upward motion, away from the motor, is covered by the district court’s construction of the claim term "pushing force." Although the Federal Circuit agreed with SafeTCare that as a factual matter the alleged infringement created a motion away from the motor, it found that this dispute is not resolved by that factual question. "Rather, the critical question is one of claim construction." The Federal Circuit focused on the patent specification’s numerous references to "pushing" forces and found that the specification specifically taught away from the use of pulling forces.
Thus, even though the Federal Circuit agreed that the "pushing force" contemplates intermediates and did not require that the motor exert a direct force, by applying the claim construction rules of Phillips the Court nevertheless concluded that the repeated emphasis in the written description on a pushing (rather than pulling force) required the claim to be narrowly construed to require a force that pushes, not pulls. The Federal Circuit concluded that the patentee’s focus on "pushing" inferred that "this attribute of the invention is important in distinguishing the invention over the prior art," thus disclaiming alternatives.
Practice Note: Patent drafters should ensure that nothing in the patent document is described with over-emphasis or by elimination, i.e., a negative description of alternatives. Such characterization might aid a reader in understanding the invention, but may result in limiting claim scope.
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.
