“The district court erred in relying on extrinsic evidence, a dictionary definition, that contradicted the scope and meaning of ‘extended court’ as a skilled craftsman would ascertain by reading the proper records. – Federal Circuit
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedent ruling that the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas erroneously held the term “extended court” to be imprecise, but the Court’s I upheld another billing term interpretation.
The lawsuit stems from a lawsuit filed by Grace Instrument Industries, LLC against Chandler Instruments Company, LLC on May 19, 2020 for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,412,877 by sale of Chandler’s Model 7600 Viscometer. . The ‘877 patent is titled “High Pressure Viscometer with Chamber to Prevent Sample Contamination.” Viscometers are used to measure the viscosity of fluids.
On July 1, 2021, the Court issued a claim construction order finding, in part, the term “enlarged chamber” in claims 1 and 4 of the patent to be indefinite. The district court held that “magnification” is a “term of degree” that “necessarily requires some comparison to some baseline” and therefore the claim “provides the skilled craftsman with the necessary objective boundaries.” No,'” he argued. Grace argued that the “extended” baseline was defined by the prior art, but the district court disagreed.
As to the second claim term at issue, “means disposed in at least one lower section for rotating said rotor,” the parties argue that the function is “to drive said rotor to rotate.” The district court accepted Chandler’s proposed construction verbatim. .
In its discussion of the indefiniteness judgment, the Federal Circuit said the district court erred in relying on extrinsic evidence rather than the inherent record to construe the claims. The court explained:
“[A]Although “expansion chamber” is not a technical term, the proprietary record is sufficient to guide one skilled in the art to the meaning of the term used in the ‘877 patent. The district court erred in relying on extrinsic evidence—a dictionary definition—that contradicted the scope and meaning of “enlarged room,” which a skilled craftsman would ascertain by reading inherent records.
Quote Trs. Columbia University v. Symantec Corp.the CAFC reminded the district court:[t]All he means is that materiality in claim construction is what it means in the patent context. “
Unlike the case of Liberty Ammunition, Inc. v. the United States, Where the CAFC found that no objective boundaries existed for the unique record of the skilled craftsman, and the district court erroneously relied, the unique record of the ‘877 patent “provided the skilled craftsman with objective boundaries.” It must be large enough to prevent mixing of the sample and the pressurized fluid in the lower measurement zone during pressurization,” the court said.
But the court said the ambiguity issue may not yet be fully resolved and “may require further fact-finding on remand,” but both Chandler and Grace have It refused to address the various arguments it raised on the issue at its first hearing.
The CAFC ultimately defined the term “expansion chamber” as “when the test sample is fully pressurized, an extra I took it to mean “a chamber large enough to contain the test sample.” “Rated pressure” and vacated the district court’s indefinite judgment and related invalidity ruling.
Regarding the interpretation of the term “means for driving said rotor to rotate, located in at least one bottom section,” the Court held that the term “bottom section” refers to the bottom section of the rotor. He disagreed with Grace’s assertion that he made a mistake in doing so. The CAFC held that “Restriction 4(c) requires the phrase “located in at least one bottom section” to modify “drive means” rather than “rotor,” “Section” refers to the bottom section of the viscometer in claim 4, not the pressure vessel. “
Thus, the CAFC ultimately affirmed the district court’s construction of “means disposed in at least one lower section for driving said rotor to rotate” and dismissed Grace’s remaining arguments.
Image Source: Deposit Photo
Image ID: 70164509
Author: Bill Perry
