Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01057/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01057-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MICH & MICH TGR, INC., A CORPORATION OF 

DELAWARE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

BRAZABRA CORPORATION, A CORPORATION OF 

MASSACHUSETTS,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1057

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of New York in No. 2:14-cv-05758-KAMAKT, Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto.

______________________ 

Decided: August 11, 2016

______________________ 

GERARD F. DUNNE, Law Office of Gerard F. Dunne, 

P.C., New York, NY, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

 MILTON SPRINGUT, Springut Law PC, New York, NY, 

argued for defendant-appellee. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, DYK, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-1057 Document: 41-2 Page: 1 Filed: 08/11/2016
2 MICH & MICH TGR, INC. v. BRAZABRA CORPORATION

STOLL, Circuit Judge. 

Mich & Mich TGR, Inc. appeals the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of New York’s 

grant of summary judgment finding that Brazabra Corp.’s 

accused bra strap retainer does not infringe the asserted 

claims of U.S. Patent No. RE 43,766. Mich & Mich TGR, 

Inc. v. Brazabra Corp. (Summary Judgment Order), 128 

F. Supp. 3d 621 (E.D.N.Y. 2015). For the reasons below, 

we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The ’766 patent is directed to a bra strap retainer to 

prevent straps from slipping off of shoulders, and methods 

of using the same. The specification explains that “[t]he 

inventive device includes a retaining member having an 

elongate main portion and opposite end portions which 

are adapted to keep straps of a bra on a user’s back in 

proximate relationship to one another.” ’766 patent col. 1 

ll. 36–40. An embodiment of the claimed bra strap retainer, with elongate main portion 11 and end portions 12 

and 13, is depicted in Figure 2 below: 

Case: 16-1057 Document: 41-2 Page: 2 Filed: 08/11/2016
MICH & MICH TGR, INC. v. BRAZABRA CORPORATION 3

’766 patent Fig. 2. Claim 12, the only claim at issue in 

this appeal, recites:

12. A method of preventing the slippage of bra 

straps off of the shoulders of a person wearing a 

bra, comprising:

providing a bra strap retainer comprising at 

least a pair of strap-retaining members positioned 

at opposite ends of the retainer, respectively, and 

an elongated member extending between the 

strap-retaining members;

positioning the bra strap retainer in the back 

region of the person, between the straps of a bra 

being worn by the person;

placing a first bra strap into a retained position by placing the strap in a first pair of slots located between the strap-retaining members and 

the elongated member; and

placing a second bra strap into a retained position by placing the strap in a second pair of slots 

located between the strap-retaining members and 

the elongated member;

wherein the bra strap retainer brings the first 

and second straps in close proximity with each 

other in a location on the person’s back, thereby 

preventing the straps from slipping off the person’s shoulder.

’766 patent col. 6 ll. 37–56 (emphasis added).

Mich & Mich brought a patent infringement suit 

against Brazabra, alleging that Brazabra’s bra strap 

retainer infringes the ’766 patent. Brazabra’s accused 

product is depicted below:

Case: 16-1057 Document: 41-2 Page: 3 Filed: 08/11/2016
4 MICH & MICH TGR, INC. v. BRAZABRA CORPORATION

Summary Judgment Order, 128 F. Supp. 3d at 636. 

Mich & Mich asserted that the segments labeled “A1” to 

“A4” in the accused product together met the “elongated 

member” claim limitation. After construing “elongated 

member” as “a main structure that is longer than it is 

wide, and that extends continuously across the opposite 

ends of the apparatus without a substantial break or 

gap,” the district court granted summary judgment of 

noninfringement with respect to the asserted claims of the 

’766 patent. Id. at 645, 657, 661.

 Mich & Mich appeals, disputing the district court’s 

construction of “elongated member” and asserting that 

the district court erred in granting summary judgment of

noninfringement of claim 12 of the ’766 patent. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

Case: 16-1057 Document: 41-2 Page: 4 Filed: 08/11/2016
MICH & MICH TGR, INC. v. BRAZABRA CORPORATION 5

DISCUSSION

“We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement.” PC Connector Sols. 

LLC v. SmartDisk Corp., 406 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 

2005). Summary judgment is appropriate if “the movant 

shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material

fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56. 

“Evaluation of summary judgment of noninfringement 

is a two-part inquiry: construing the claims and comparing the properly construed claims to the accused product.” 

Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc. v. Dow Chem. Co., 811 F.3d 

1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “The ultimate construction of 

the claim is a legal question and, therefore, is reviewed de 

novo.” Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applied Media Techs. Corp., 783 

F.3d 1262, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2015). While subsidiary factual findings regarding extrinsic evidence are reviewed for 

clear error, we review a claim construction based solely 

upon intrinsic evidence de novo. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. 

v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015). Because the 

district court considered only intrinsic evidence in construing the disputed claim term here, our review is 

de novo. “Infringement, whether literal or under the 

doctrine of equivalents, is a question of fact. As such, it is 

amenable to summary judgment when no reasonable 

factfinder could find that the accused product contains 

every claim limitation or its equivalent.” Akzo, 811 F.3d 

at 1339 (internal citation omitted). 

I. Claim Construction

The district court construed the claim 12 limitation 

“elongated member” as “a main structure that is longer 

than it is wide, and that extends continuously across the 

opposite ends of the apparatus without a substantial 

break or gap.” Summary Judgment Order, 128 F. Supp. 

3d at 639. Mich & Mich does not dispute that the “elonCase: 16-1057 Document: 41-2 Page: 5 Filed: 08/11/2016
6 MICH & MICH TGR, INC. v. BRAZABRA CORPORATION

gated member” must be longer than it is wide, but argues 

that the district court improperly imported requirements 

that the “elongated member” be the “main structure” of 

the apparatus and “extend[] continuously across the 

opposite ends of the apparatus.” We disagree and adopt 

the district court’s construction.

The term “elongated member” does not appear in the 

specification, but was added to claim 12 during prosecution of the reissue application to overcome a written 

description rejection and an indefiniteness rejection. In 

adding this claim term, the patentee stated that the 

original specification described the “elongated member.” 

As the specification refers to only an “elongate main 

portion,” depicted as segment 11 in Figures 2–4 of the 

’766 patent, the district court properly concluded that the

’766 patent uses the terms “elongate main portion” and 

“elongated member” interchangeably. Moreover, in 

briefing to the district court, Mich & Mich described the 

“elongated member” as “a main central portion of the 

invention that is elongated.” Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) 372 

(emphasis added). As such, we agree with the district 

court’s inclusion of “main structure” in its construction of 

“elongated member.”

Mich & Mich next argues that the “elongated member” need not extend continuously across the apparatus, 

asserting that the district court’s construction imports 

limitations from dependent claims 13 and 15 into independent claim 12. To determine whether the “elongated 

member” must be continuous, we first examine the claims 

of the ’766 patent, because “the claims themselves provide 

substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular 

claim terms.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 

(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The term “elongated member” 

first appears in independent claim 12, which describes the 

“elongated member” as “extending between the strapretaining members” and requires the strap-retaining 

members be “positioned at opposite ends of the retainer.” 

Case: 16-1057 Document: 41-2 Page: 6 Filed: 08/11/2016
MICH & MICH TGR, INC. v. BRAZABRA CORPORATION 7

’766 patent col. 6 ll. 40–42. In order to extend between 

the strap-retaining members, located at opposite ends of 

the retainer, the elongated member must be a continuous 

structure between the strap-retaining members. Mich & 

Mich points to nothing in the specification or prosecution 

history that suggests the “elongated member” can have a 

split or break. Instead, the specification only depicts the 

“elongated member” as a continuous structure, see ’766 

patent, Figures 2–4, and provides no description to the 

contrary. 

The doctrine of claim differentiation does not dictate a 

different result here. Claim differentiation “only creates a 

presumption that each claim in a patent has a different 

scope; it is not a ‘hard and fast’ rule of construction.” 

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 

F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Comark 

Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 

(Fed. Cir. 1998)). “[T]he doctrine of claim differentiation 

cannot broaden claims beyond their correct scope, determined in light of the specification and the prosecution 

history and any relevant extrinsic evidence.” Multiform 

Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1480 

(Fed. Cir. 1998). As explained above, the language of 

claim 12 dictates that the “elongated member” extend 

continuously, and the additional limitations in claims 13 

and 15 cannot broaden the scope of the “elongated member.” We therefore adopt the district court’s construction 

of “elongated member” as “a main structure that is longer 

than it is wide, and that extends continuously across the 

opposite ends of the apparatus without a substantial 

break or gap.” 

II. Infringement

Mich & Mich concedes that if the “elongated member” 

must be continuous, Brazabra’s bra strap retainer does 

not literally infringe claim 12. See Appellant’s Reply 

Br. 3. Thus, because we adopt the district court’s conCase: 16-1057 Document: 41-2 Page: 7 Filed: 08/11/2016
8 MICH & MICH TGR, INC. v. BRAZABRA CORPORATION

struction that the “elongated member” extends continuously across the opposite ends of the apparatus, we affirm 

the district court’s grant of summary judgment finding no 

literal infringement of claim 12.

Mich & Mich argues, however, that claim 12 is nonetheless infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. 

Brazabra counters that Mich & Mich waived this argument because it did not raise infringement of claim 12 

under the doctrine of equivalents before the district court. 

We agree with Brazabra and find that Mich & Mich 

cannot assert infringement of claim 12 under the doctrine 

of equivalents on appeal. “If a litigant seeks to show error 

in a trial court’s overlooking an argument, it must first 

present that argument to the trial court. In short, this 

court does not ‘review’ that which was not presented to 

the district court.” Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 

126 F.3d 1420, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Before the district 

court, in its claim construction submission, Mich & Mich 

asserted only that “the accused Brazabra Clip infring[es] 

the asserted claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8 under the ‘doctrine of 

equivalents.’” J.A. 272. And in Mich & Mich’s opposition 

to Brazabra’s motion for summary judgment, it reiterated 

that “[t]he accused Brazabra Clip infringes the asserted 

claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8 under the ‘doctrine of equivalents.’” 

J.A. 375. Mich & Mich does not point us to any place in 

the record where it asserted before the district court 

infringement of claim 12 under the doctrine of equivalents. As such, we find that Mich & Mich waived this 

issue and is precluded from raising it on appeal.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, because the district court correctly construed the claim limitation “elongated member” and 

because Mich & Mich waived any argument that claim 12 

is infringed under the doctrine of equivalents, we affirm 

the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninCase: 16-1057 Document: 41-2 Page: 8 Filed: 08/11/2016
MICH & MICH TGR, INC. v. BRAZABRA CORPORATION 9

fringement with respect to claim 12. We decline to award 

fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 as requested by Brazabra.

AFFIRMED

Case: 16-1057 Document: 41-2 Page: 9 Filed: 08/11/2016