Court: District Court, N.D. Texas; December 26, 2017; Federal District Court
Plaintiffs TNA Australia Pty Limited and TNA North America Inc. (collectively "TNA") initiated a lawsuit against PPM Technologies, LLC ("PPM") for infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,185,754. On December 18, 2017, the Court conducted a claim construction hearing to clarify the disputed terms of the patent. The '754 patent addresses a conveyor system designed to transfer products from one conveyor to another without using gates, which are commonly used but pose cleaning challenges. The system consists of conveyor segments aligned end-to-end and transverse conveyors positioned below them, enabling the transfer of products without misalignment issues. The patent's preferred embodiment includes a rotating conveyor segment that causes products to drop onto the transverse conveyor based on the degree of misalignment. Claim 1 exemplifies the invention’s components and relationships, detailing how the first and second conveyor segments interact and how items are redirected to the transverse conveyor below when misalignment occurs. All disputed terms are found within this claim, emphasizing the functional relationships between the segments and the transverse conveyor.
Claim construction is a legal question determined by the court, rooted in the intent of the inventors and the language of the claims. The claims define the invention and the patentee's rights, as established in Markman v. Westview Instruments. Courts begin with the claim language, typically assigning terms their ordinary meaning as understood by a person skilled in the relevant field at the time of invention. However, if the patentee provides a special definition in the specification or prosecution history, that definition prevails.
When the meaning of a term is unclear, courts may examine various sources, including the entire patent specification, prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence such as expert testimony, dictionaries, and technical treatises. The specification is crucial and often serves as the best guide for interpreting disputed terms. If the specification indicates that a term has a distinct definition or if there has been a disavowal of claim scope, that information guides the court's construction. Extrinsic evidence can enhance understanding of the technology and clarify how terms are used in the field, ensuring consistency with the perspective of a person skilled in the art.
Extrinsic evidence can provide insight into relevant art but holds less importance than intrinsic evidence in interpreting patent claim scope. Courts are advised to disregard expert testimony that contradicts the intrinsic evidence, which includes the claims, written description, and prosecution history of the patent. The court adopts the parties' agreed constructions for the claim terms "conveyor longitudinally extending surface" and "linear conveyors," confirming their definitions as a longitudinally extending conveyor surface and plain and ordinary meaning, respectively.
For disputed terms, the court provided the following constructions:
1. **"lateral displacement between"**: Defined as "sidewards displacement between the first segment downstream end relative to the second segment upstream end," encompassing potential vertical movement.
2. **"relative displacement between"**: The court will not provide a construction, interpreting it as a change in position between the first and second segments.
3. **"upstream end"**: No construction needed; understood as the section of the conveyor segment where items are introduced, optionally including an upstream edge.
4. **"downstream end"**: No construction needed; understood as the section of the conveyor segment where items exit, optionally including a downstream edge.
The court's decisions reflect careful consideration of the terms and the parties' agreements.
The term "transverse conveyor" is defined as a conveyor that crosses the longitudinal transport direction of the first and second conveyor segments, specifically positioned at an angle that is not substantially parallel to them. Both parties agree the transverse conveyor must not be parallel or in line with the conveyor segments. TNA asserts the conveyor should be at a significant angle to ensure proper item transfer from the first segment, referencing the preferred embodiment where it is perpendicular to the segments. PPM counters that the patent lacks a precise definition of acceptable angles and criticizes the ambiguity of "substantially." The Court acknowledges a range of acceptable positions for the transverse conveyor but refrains from specifying this range, as its placement is defined later in the claim. TNA’s incorporation of this limitation into the definition is deemed redundant by the Court, which opts for a construction that aligns with intrinsic evidence and avoids redundancy, defining the transverse conveyor simply as a conveyor that crosses the longitudinal transport direction.
The Court refuses to adopt PPM's definition of "transverse conveyor," which includes "offset or misaligned" conveyors, as it lacks intrinsic or extrinsic evidence and introduces ambiguity regarding the term "offset," which is not defined in the patent. Citing Geodynamics, the Court emphasizes that claim constructions should be based on the intrinsic record and must not introduce confusing technical terms not present in the patent.
Regarding the term "positioned below," TNA argues it requires the transverse conveyor to be directly beneath both segment ends to ensure proper item transfer. PPM contends that it suffices for the conveyor to be positioned below just one segment end while being lower than both. PPM's interpretation aligns with dictionary definitions of "below" and the specific language of the patent, which differentiates between "below" and "beneath." The Court finds no compelling reason to limit "below" as strictly as TNA suggests, concluding that the claim can cover a scenario where the transverse conveyor is below one segment end and still receives items falling from it.
For the term "aligned position at which a desired quantity of said items pass from said first segment to said second segment," the Court determines no construction is necessary, as it is understood that "aligned position" does not need to imply a parallel orientation.
The term "displaced position" refers to the specific location where additional desired items are removed from a conveyor due to the relative positioning of two segments: the downstream end of the first segment and the upstream end of the second segment. TNA proposed no construction for this term, while PPM suggested it denotes a position where the first segment is misaligned with the second segment, resulting from changes in their relative positions. The Court ultimately decided not to construct the term "displaced position" further. The Court adopted the claim constructions as presented and instructed that the parties must not reference each other’s claim positions or any part of this opinion in front of the jury, except for the definitions adopted. Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 are identified as independent claims in the '754 patent.
