Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02146/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02146-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sportlite, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Genlyte Thomas Group, LLC and DayBrite Lighting, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2146-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is the Special Master's recommendation that this Court

permit the parties to submit evidence of Defendant's accused product. The parties have

submitted briefing on this issue and the Court enters the following Order. 

I. Background 

On December 6, 2005 this Court issued an order granting Defendant Genlyte Thomas

Group LLC's ("Defendant" or "Genlyte") motion to strike references to Defendant's accused

product. (Dkt.#57). Specifically, Plaintiff Sportlite, Inc., ("Plaintiff" or "Sportlite") had

referenced the alleged infringing product in one of its Markman briefing pleadings. As such,

Plaintiff was ordered to refile its brief without reference to Defendant's alleged infringing

product. 

On July 3, 2006, Special Master Thomas Watkins III ("Special Master Watkins")

issued his Draft Report and Recommendation regarding the claim construction portion of this

Case 2:04-cv-02146-MHM Document 89 Filed 07/18/06 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

litigation as to U.S. Patent No. Re. 36,414 ("the '414 Patent"). In addition to disclosing his

preliminary findings to the parties, Special Master Watkins requested the Court reconsider

its previous ruling regarding reference to the accused product. (Draft Report and

Recommendation, pp.2-3). Specifically, Special Master Watkins directed the Court's

attention to recent authority from the Federal Circuit addressing this issue. Most notably,

Special Master Watkins cited the Court's attention to Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich

& Bradsby Co., 442 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed. Cir. March 23, 2006) which stated in pertinent

part:

While a trial court should certainly not prejudice the ultimate infringement

analysis by construing claims with an aim to include or exclude the accused

product or process, knowledge of that product or process provides meaningful

context for the first step of the infringement analysis, claim

construction....Furthermore, this sparse record lacks the complete context for

accurate claim construction. Thus, without a record of the accused products,

this appeal assumes many attributes of a proceeding seeking and advisory

opinion...

Moreover, on April 19, 2006, the Federal Circuit issued its holding in Lava Trading

v. Sonic Trading Mngmt, LLC, 445 F.3d 1348, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006) stating in pertinent

part:

In addition, the record on appeal does not supply any meaningful comparison

of the accused products to the asserted claims. Without knowledge of the

accused products, this court cannot assess the accuracy of the infringement

judgment under review and lacks a proper context for an accurate claim

construction. While a trial court should certainly not prejudice the ultimate

infringement analysis by construing claims with an aim to include or exclude

an accused product or process, knowledge of that product or process provides

meaningful context for the first step of the infringement analysis, claim

construction.

...

Without the vital contextual knowledge of the accused products or processes,

this appeal takes on the attributes of something akin to an advisory opinion on

the scope of the '982 patent. The problems with such an appeal, even if within

this court's jurisdiction, have been noted in may of the court's prior cases. 

Based upon these recent cases, the Special Master recommends that the Court

reconsider its ruling and permit the parties to submit evidence of the accused product to assist

in the final determination of the claim construction portion of this litigation. In response to

the Special Master's recommendation, the Court issued a minute order directing the parties

Case 2:04-cv-02146-MHM Document 89 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

to file any objections or comments. Both parties filed their comments and objections on July

14 2006. (Dkt.#'s 86,88).

II. Analysis

Plaintiff has no objection to the Special Master's recommendation regarding reference

to the accused product. (Dkt.#86). In fact to expedite matters, Plaintiff recommends that the

parties submit specification sheets of the accused products before August 11, 2006.

Defendant, on the other hand, firmly objects to any such reference to the accused product

during the claim construction portion of the litigation. Defendant refers to the general

principle of patent law that the Court base its interpretation of the claims on the intrinsic

record to the extent possible and the general disfavor of the use of extrinsic evidence in

construing claims. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317-19 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Moreover, Defendant argues the recent Federal Circuit cases do not require reference to the

accused product. Most notably, Defendant relies on separate language from the Federal

Circuit's ruling in Wilson Sporting Goods which relates in pertinent part:

This court, of course, repeats its rule that "claims may not be construed with

reference to the accused device."... As noted earlier, that rule posits that a court

may not use the accused product or process as a form of extrinsic evidence to

supply limitations for patent claim language. Thus, the rule forbids a court

from tailoring a claim construction to fit the dimensions of the accused product

or process and to reach a preconceived judgment of infringement or

noninfringement. In other words, it forbids biasing the claim construction

process to exclude or include specific features of the accused product or

process. The rule, however, does not forbid awareness of the accused product

or process to supply the parameters and scope of the infringement analysis,

including its claim construction component. ... In light of the principles, if the

litigants cannot themselves inform a trial court of the specific issues presented

by the infringement inquiry - that is, issues of the breadth of the claim

construction analysis and the most useful terms to facilitate that defining

process - then a trial court may refer to the accused product or process for that

context during the process.

Id. at 1330-31. 

Defendant argues that because the parameters of Plaintiff's patent have been properly

laid out and there is no ambiguity as to which claims are to be interpreted there is no need

to refer to the accused device when interpreting the claims of the '414 Patent. 

This Court finds the recent Federal Circuit rulings do not mandate reference to the

accused device during the claim construction phase of the litigation. Such a result would be

Case 2:04-cv-02146-MHM Document 89 Filed 07/18/06 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

contrary to the disfavor of use of extrinsic evidence during such proceedings as well as

settled precedent. See NeoMagic Corp. v. Trident Microsytems, Inc., 287 F.3d 1062, 1074

(Fed. Cir. 2002) (stating that "it is well settled that claims may not be construed by reference

to the accused device."); SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1118,

227 USPQ 577, 583 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (explaining that "[a] claim is construed in the

light of the claim language, the other claims, the prior art, the prosecution history, and the

specification, not in light of the accused device. ...It is only after the claims have been

construed without reference to the accused device that the claims, as so construed, are

applied to the accused device to determine infringement.").

The Federal Circuit's holding in Wilson Sporting Goods does carve out an exception

permitting reference to the accused device, but only in certain situations where it is unclear

as the "breadth of the claim construction analysis." It is not clear that such a situation exists

here. Rather, the parties have clearly set forth the claims of Plaintiff's '414 patent that are to

be interpreted and Plaintiff makes no argument to the contrary. Thus, this Court will not

reconsider its ruling with respect to reference to the accused device during the claim

construction phase of this litigation. See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v.

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (noting that motions for reconsideration are

disfavored and are only appropriate if the Court "(1) is presented with newly discovered

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if

there is an intervening change in controlling law."). Such circumstances justifying

reconsideration do not exist in this case. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the claim construction phase of this litigation will

continue without reference to the accused product. The parties are not permitted to

supplement the record with evidence regarding the accused product. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall comply with the deadlines

imposed by the Special Master on pages 26-27 of the Draft Report and Recommendation.

The Special Master will then review any comments and objections to the Draft Report and

Case 2:04-cv-02146-MHM Document 89 Filed 07/18/06 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

Recommendation and issue his Final Report and Recommendation for the Court's

consideration and the parties further comments and/or objections. 

DATED this 17th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02146-MHM Document 89 Filed 07/18/06 Page 5 of 5