Court: District Court, E.D. Texas; January 18, 2010; Federal District Court
The Memorandum Opinion and Order, authored by District Judge Leonard Davis, addresses the interpretation of six patents held by Plaintiff Sta-Rite Industries, LLC, previously known as SHURflo, LLC. The patents in question include U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,048,183 ('183 Patent), 5,791,882 ('882 Patent), 6,050,662 ('662 Patent), 6,305,767 ('767 Patent), 7,225,936 ('936 Patent), and 5,833,437 ('437 Patent'). SHURflo alleges that Defendants—ITT Corporation, ITT Industries, Inc., Flojet Corporation, ITT Jabsco, Inc., and Rule Industries, Inc.—have infringed these patents. The '183 Patent focuses on diaphragm pump modifications for enhanced performance, while the '882 Patent details a high-efficiency diaphragm pump featuring a wobble plate drive to improve efficiency and longevity. The '662 and '767 Patents involve a modular system for various pumps, with the '767 Patent being a divisional application of the '662 Patent. The '936 Patent pertains to a rack for dispensing comestible fluids, and the '437 Patent describes a bilge pump with an effective flow path.
The Court denied the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness regarding the '882 and '936 Patents. It emphasized that patent claims define the invention and are interpreted based on intrinsic evidence, including claims, specifications, and prosecution history. Claim terms are understood in their ordinary meaning as recognized by skilled individuals at the time of invention, and context within the claims is crucial for interpretation. Differences in terms across claims suggest variations in meaning and scope.
A dependent claim that adds a limitation to an independent claim is presumed to exclude that limitation from the independent claim. However, the doctrine of claim differentiation is not absolute; courts cannot use it to expand claims beyond their intended scope, which is established through intrinsic records and relevant extrinsic evidence. Claims must be interpreted in the context of the specification, which is crucial for claim construction and often serves as the primary guide for understanding disputed terms. A patentee can define terms, assign them alternate meanings, or disclaim certain claim scopes, making the inventor's definitions authoritative. While the specification can clarify ambiguous terms, it does not typically incorporate specific embodiments or examples into the claims. The prosecution history also provides context, as applicants may define terms during patent prosecution, and any disclaimers must be clear to limit claim interpretations accordingly. Extrinsic evidence, though potentially helpful, is subordinate to the intrinsic record when determining claim language meanings. Technical dictionaries and expert testimony may assist in understanding technology, but definitions must align with the patent's usage to be useful; unsupported expert assertions lack value in legal determinations.
A claim is deemed indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 if it does not clearly outline the subject matter regarded as the invention, which is critical for public understanding of the patent's scope. To establish indefiniteness, an accused infringer must provide clear and convincing evidence that a skilled artisan cannot discern the claim's boundaries. A claim is not indefinite if its meaning can be understood, even if challenging, and is only considered indefinite if it is "insolubly ambiguous."
In the context of the '183 Patent, claims 10, 11, and 12 include the term "about," which is at the center of a dispute. SHURflo argues for a broad interpretation of "about," suggesting it should include a full increment or decrement in the least significant digit, proposing that "at least about 0.15" means "at least 0.14," and similar adjustments for the other claims. SHURflo maintains this interpretation aligns with the specificity intended by the patentee, who claimed the ratios to two decimal places.
Conversely, the Defendants advocate for a narrower interpretation, arguing that the '183 Patent emphasizes precision, as evidenced by a chart in column 7 which uses three decimal places to compare ratios from the invention and prior art. They propose that "about" should encompass values that, when rounded to the hundredths place, match the claimed value. Thus, they suggest specific ranges based on this rounding.
SHURflo counters that the intrinsic record does not support the Defendants' narrow constructions and points out that the patentee intentionally chose to claim ratios to two decimal places despite being capable of using three. Consequently, the Court will interpret the "about" terms with a focus on quantitative boundaries rather than qualitative ones.
Given the specification's focus on numerical precision and lack of qualitative detail regarding disclosed ratios, the term "about" should be interpreted narrowly. Defendants' proposed definitions lack flexibility, as they merely round numerically to the claimed values without allowing for true approximation. For instance, the claim "at least about 0.15" would be interpreted as "greater than 0.14" rather than allowing for a broader range. The patent's use of different decimal places indicates the inventor's intent for a specific range of accuracy. Therefore, "about" should encompass all values that are less than a full increment and greater than a full decrement of the least significant digit. Consequently, the Court construes the terms related to ratios R3 and R2 with precise numerical ranges, emphasizing the importance of measurement accuracy over the number of decimal places used.
Additionally, the term "generally annular region" in Claim 12 of the '882 Patent was agreed upon by both parties to mean "a ring-shaped region or zone circumscribing a pumping member." This definition aligns with the claim language and specification. Regarding the phrase "the thickness of the generally annular region increases as the region approaches the pumping member," the Court finds it definite, meeting the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, despite Defendants' claims of indefiniteness.
Defendants argue that the patent specification fails to provide clear guidance on the location and size of the 'portions' within the generally annular region described, which is said to vary in thickness relative to the pumping member. They claim that this lack of specificity makes it impossible for a skilled individual to avoid patent infringement. However, the court finds that the claim language is sufficiently definite to inform the public about the invention's boundaries. The disputed terms are derived from the specification, not Claim 12, and the definiteness requirement is satisfied. The generally annular region is illustrated in multiple figures within the '882 Patent, specifically highlighted in Figure 7, which shows it as a ring-shaped area surrounding the central piston surface and flexing with the pumping member's movement. The specification further clarifies that the thickness of this region increases as it approaches the pumping member, a concept that is visually supported in both Figures 5 and 7. Overall, the details provided in the figures and the specification adequately inform a person skilled in the art about the nature and location of the generally annular region, thereby addressing any potential ambiguity regarding its thickness.
The specification of the '882 Patent describes the diaphragm's thickness as progressively increasing in annular zones from a point distant from the pumping member to one adjacent to it, indicating that the claim's meaning is discernible and not insolubly ambiguous. However, there is a dispute over the construction of the term. SHURflo argues that the term means at least some portion of the annular region near the pumping member is thicker than a portion farther away. Defendants counter that SHURflo's interpretation introduces ambiguity and suggests an unlimited variety of thickness profiles, which deviates from the claim's plain language that requires an increasing thickness throughout the entire annular region. They assert that the specification clearly defines the annular region as a complete ring-shaped area surrounding the pumping member. The specification emphasizes that the diaphragm must flex and that a thicker convolute near the pumping member effectively reduces stress and prolongs the diaphragm's life. The Court concludes that the claim mandates that the thickness of the entire annular region must increase as it approaches the pumping member. Defendants propose that if construction is necessary, it should mean that the thickness progressively increases towards the pumping member, while SHURflo argues this interpretation is too narrow and only describes a preferred embodiment.
Particular embodiments in a specification should not be incorporated into claims that use broader language. The Court agrees with SHURflo that the Defendants’ proposed claim construction is overly restrictive, as the requirement for increased thickness does not necessitate a uniform or progressive increase. The claim simply requires an increase in thickness as one approaches the pumping member. For SHURflo to establish infringement, it must demonstrate that the Defendants’ product includes a ring-shaped area surrounding a pumping member, which need not be perfectly circular. The thickness of this area must increase from a point farthest from the pumping member to a point closest, without decreasing at any point along that radius. The Court clarifies that the claim’s language should not be interpreted too narrowly or too broadly, and denies Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment based on indefiniteness of the '882 Patent, affirming that the claim language is clear and understandable. The Court instructs the parties to align trial arguments with this Order. Additionally, regarding the terms in Claims 5 of the '662 Patent and Claims 1, 11, and 18 of the '767 Patent, both parties have differing interpretations of "a plurality of different sets of elements." SHURflo defines it as at least two sets differing in number or kind, while Defendants argue it refers to uniquely tailored sets without common elements. The Court finds SHURflo’s interpretation overly narrow, as the claim language permits sets to differ in arrangement rather than composition.
The specification of the '662 Patent states that each set of elements is exclusive, meaning elements in one set do not interact with those in another set to secure a pump to the housing. Defendants argue this construction is supported by the prosecution history, where the patentee emphasized the novelty of different element sets to overcome the Hoss prior art reference. They highlight that the Hoss reference only discusses sets of elements designed for specific engine configurations, unlike the claims of the '662 Patent, which involve sets tailored for various pump types. Defendants assert that an italicized phrase in the prosecution history refers to the claims of the patent and indicates a narrowing of claim terms during prosecution.
In contrast, SHURflo argues that Defendants’ construction improperly limits the claims to the preferred embodiment and that the italicized phrase pertains to prior art rather than the patent claims. SHURflo contends that the prosecution history does not support an exclusivity limitation, as the patentee argued that different sets of elements were suitable for differently configured pumps without asserting that these sets cannot share elements. The Court finds that the prosecution disclaimer does not apply due to a lack of clear and unmistakable disclaimers. Consequently, the Court constructs the term "a plurality of different sets of elements" to mean "two or more sets of elements where no two sets are the same, each of said different sets of elements being adapted to at least assist in holding one of a plurality of differently configured pumps to the housing."
The Court also addresses two primary disagreements between SHURflo and Defendants: the necessity of exclusivity between sets of elements and the interpretation of "adapted to." The first dispute has been resolved in prior analysis, eliminating the need for further discussion.
A requirement for exclusivity among the different sets of elements is unsupported by the claim language, specification, or prosecution history. The parties dispute the interpretation of 'adapted to,' with SHURflo arguing it means 'having the capacity to' and Defendants asserting it means 'uniquely tailored.' SHURflo lacks persuasive support for its interpretation and claims that Defendants' construction is overly narrow, pointing out that the prosecution history only shows that the 'different sets of elements' can hold 'pumps of different configurations.' The Court finds that neither the ordinary meaning nor the specification supports Defendants' interpretation as it would unduly narrow the term's meaning. Conversely, SHURflo's interpretation is deemed too broad, as it disregards the notion that mere capacity does not equate to being suitably designed for a specific use. The Court refers to Merriam-Webster’s definition of 'adapted' as 'to make fit for a specific use,' which aligns with the claim language stating that the sets of elements must assist in holding pumps. The Court concludes that 'adapted to' should be construed as 'designed or configured to,' which appropriately reflects both the breadth of the term and the specifics of the specification. Accordingly, for the claims in question, 'each different set of elements is designed or configured to assist in holding one of the differently configured pumps to the housing.' The dispute regarding 'adapted to' is thus resolved consistently across the relevant claims.
The Court interprets the term "the hole being sized and adapted to receive a portion of a pin" as meaning "the hole being designed or configured to receive a portion of a pin." Similarly, "at least one hole sized and adapted to receive a fastener therein to secure a pump having the first pump configuration to the housing" is construed as "one or more holes designed or configured to receive a fastener to secure a pump having the first pump configuration to the housing."
In the dispute over the term "clips," SHURflo defines it as "pieces that are capable of holding something," while the Defendants define it as "devices that are capable of gripping something." SHURflo argues that the specification indicates that "the clips act to hold the pump," suggesting a broader functionality than mere gripping. Conversely, Defendants cite the prosecution history to argue that "clipping" is more specific than "holding," stating that the patentee distinguished "clip" from "hold." While the prosecution history is relevant, the Court finds that a disclaimer of claim scope is not clear and unmistakable, thus the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer does not apply.
Defendants contend that SHURflo's proposed definition is overly broad, potentially encompassing any items that can hold something, such as hooks or pins, which are separately claimed in the patent. Although Defendants' proposal aligns with some embodiments of clips, the specification also includes a "clip" that functions by pushing against an object, as illustrated by the cavity clip in Figure 5 of the '767 Patent. The Court concludes that "clips" should be construed as "devices that assist in holding something by gripping it or pushing against it."
Regarding "cavity clip," both parties agree it is a clip located within a cavity but differ on its function and whether the item being held must also be within the cavity. SHURflo defines "cavity clip" as a piece within the housing's hollow portion capable of holding something, while Defendants argue it specifically grips something within the cavity. The Court acknowledges that while the "cavity clip" is indeed within a cavity, the specification does not necessitate that the item being gripped must also reside within the cavity.
The claim language specifies a “cavity clip” designed to hold a portion of the pump within the cavity, indicating that requiring the entire clipped item to reside within the cavity would be overly restrictive. The Court defines “cavity clip” as a device within a cavity that grips or pushes against something. Regarding the term “hook,” SHURflo defines it as a curved or bent device for catching or fastening, while Defendants argue it must be a rigid piece of material. The Court finds no inherent requirement for rigidity in the definition of “hook,” noting that it can be flexible as long as it maintains structural integrity for its function. The Court also decides that SHURflo’s definition is vague and potentially confusing for jurors, affirming that the claim language is clear and does not necessitate further construction.
In relation to the term “pin,” there is a dispute over whether it must be a “separate elongated fastener.” SHURflo’s definition is deemed overly broad, as it could encompass other mechanisms like hooks or clips. Although Defendants assert that the specification suggests a pin is a separate elongated fastener, the Court notes that the specification does not explicitly state that a pin must be entirely separate from the housing. The Court ultimately instructs that trial arguments should align with this Order regarding the terms in question.
The term "pin" is defined as a device not integral with the housing that assists in holding something by insertion, rather than being limited to an elongated fastener. While pins are typically elongated, other forms like pushpins or thumbtacks exist, and the essence of a pin is its function of fastening through bores and holes. The Court clarifies that the combination of the hook, hole, and pin must be effective to hold the pump to the housing, rejecting SHURflo’s broader interpretation of mere capability, which lacks support in the claim language. The Court emphasized that eliminating any one element does not necessarily cause a failure to hold the pump, countering the Defendants' argument that all elements must be present for effective holding. The claim language is deemed clear and does not require further construction beyond its ordinary meaning.
For the term “lever including a second aperture,” the Court adopts SHURflo’s definition, emphasizing the use of "including," which is clear and understandable, as opposed to Defendants' use of "containing."
Regarding "boss," SHURflo defines it as an area raised relative to another area, while Defendants describe it as a structure on a flat body. The disagreement centers on whether a "boss" refers strictly to a raised area or a structure.
SHURflo asserts that its interpretation of "boss" aligns with the ordinary meaning and the specifications of the '936 Patent, emphasizing that the term "raised bosses" refers to a specific raised geometry that Defendants overlook. Defendants counter that the patent language implies a "boss" does not need to be "raised," citing the specification's wording which suggests that the term may not be limited to raised structures. SHURflo argues that interpreting "boss" merely as a "raised area" would undermine the distinct meanings of "raised" and "boss," the latter signifying a protrusion. The Court ultimately defines "boss" as "a three-dimensional body or structure extending from the planar body, adapted to be received."
Regarding "adapted to be received," SHURflo contends it means "having the capacity to be accepted or supported," while Defendants believe it should retain its ordinary meaning without construction. The Court decides to interpret "adapted to be received" as "designed or configured to be received," consistent with prior interpretations.
For "adapted to contact," Defendants argue this term is indefinite. However, the Court finds that it meets the definiteness requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, noting that Claim 1 specifies “at least one boss adapted to contact the second protrusion of the pump.” While Defendants claim that the patent does not adequately explain how the bosses interact with the pump's protrusion, the Court maintains that the specification describes the bosses' functionality, stating they receive a rail or protrusion of the pump. Defendants argue that the absence of clarity and the lack of visual representation in the figures make it impossible for someone skilled in the art to understand how the bosses are designed to contact the pump's protrusion.
SHURflo asserts that a person skilled in the art would recognize from the ’936 Patent's specification and Figure 4 that the pump is designed to be symmetric, with a rail contacting raised bosses when engaged in a bracket. They argue that the specification need not specify the precise contact point for understanding that the raised bosses frictionally engage the pump's protrusion. The determination of whether a claim limitation is definite, particularly when defined functionally, relies on contextual factors such as the specification's disclosures and the knowledge of a skilled person in the field. The claim language and specification refute the defendants' claim that the term “adapted to contact” is indefinite, as it is apparent that a skilled person would comprehend the interaction between the pump and the bosses. Consequently, the defendants have not provided sufficient evidence to prove the term's indefiniteness, leading to the denial of their Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the '936 Patent.
Furthermore, the court clarifies the term “adapted to contact” as meaning “designed or configured to functionally engage.” In relation to Claims 1 and 11 of the '437 Patent, the parties dispute the interpretation of “impeller assembly operatively coupled to said motor.” SHURflo defines it as an apparatus that is directly or indirectly coupled to the motor for operability, while the defendants argue it refers only to direct coupling, asserting that the specification only discloses an embodiment with magnetic (indirect) coupling. They argue that a direct coupling would contradict the operational mechanics outlined in the patent. SHURflo counters that claims cannot be restricted solely to the disclosed embodiment.
SHURflo contends that Claims 4 and 10 of the '437 Patent depend on Claim 1 and specifically necessitate a "magnetic coupling." Under the doctrine of claim differentiation, SHURflo asserts that Claims 1 and 11 are broader than Claims 4 and 10. The claim language and specification do not limit “operatively coupled” to only “indirect” coupling. Although the specification mentions “magnetic” coupling, the patentee opted to use the broader term “operatively coupled.” Courts generally presume differing meanings when distinct phrases are employed in separate claims, thus supporting the interpretation that “operatively coupled” encompasses both “direct” and “indirect” coupling. The Court agrees with SHURflo's interpretation, defining “impeller assembly operatively coupled to said motor” as “a rotating impeller apparatus coupled directly or indirectly to the pump motor so that they are operable together.” Consequently, the Court interprets the claim language accordingly. Additionally, the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness regarding the '882 Patent and '936 Patent is denied. The Court's claim interpretations are summarized in a table in Appendix A.
