Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01699/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01699-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TOMTOM, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL ADOLPH,

Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant

______________________ 

2014-1699

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Virginia in No. 1:12-cv-00528-TSEIDD, Judge T. S. Ellis III.

______________________ 

Decided: June 19, 2015

______________________ 

BRIAN PANDYA, Wiley Rein, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff/counterclaim defendant-appellee. Also 

represented by JAMES HAROLD WALLACE, JR., KARIN A.

HESSLER, MATTHEW JAMES DOWD, GREGORY ROBERT 

LYONS. 

ANTIGONE GABRIELLA PEYTON, Cloudigy Law PLLC, 

McLean, VA, argued for defendant/counterclaimantappellant. Also represented by CLYDE E. FINDLEY. 

______________________ 

Case: 14-1699 Document: 47-2 Page: 1 Filed: 06/19/2015
2 TOMTOM, INC. v. ADOLPH

Before WALLACH AND HUGHES, Circuit Judges, and FOGEL 

District Judge.*

WALLACH, Circuit Judge. 

Appellant Dr. Michael Adolph appeals the claim construction of several terms of U.S. Patent No. 6,356,836 

(“the ’836 patent”), for which he is the inventor, by the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Virginia. For the reasons set forth below, this court 

reverses and remands. 

BACKGROUND

I. The ’836 Patent

The ’836 patent describes “[a] method and device for 

generating, merging and updating data” that can then be 

used to provide a mobile unit with current, and continuously updated, accurate road network, route, and traffic 

information. ’836 patent Abstract; id. col. 4 ll. 52–65. As 

stated in the Brief Summary of the Invention, a purpose 

of the invention is “to establish a method to generate 

appropriate data utilizable for a practical destination 

tracking system which carries out a permanent self

updating and with data generation which requires little 

effort. The method is also appropriate for deriving destination tracking data from the data generated in accordance with the aforesaid method.” Id. col. 3 ll. 38–44. 

Claim 1 of the ’836 patent is the only asserted independent claim:

* Honorable Jeremy Fogel, District Judge, United 

States District Court for the Northern District of California, 

and Director of the Federal Judicial Center, sitting by 

designation. 

 

Case: 14-1699 Document: 47-2 Page: 2 Filed: 06/19/2015
TOMTOM, INC. v. ADOLPH 3

1. A method for generating and updating data for 

use in a destination tracking system of at least one 

mobile unit comprising:

generating and storing traveled distance data in 

at least one storage device provided in said mobile 

unit at least at predetermined time intervals, 

wherein the traveled distance data represent 

traveled sections by at least a series of nodes Pi

and to each node Pi geographical coordinates xi 

and yi are assigned;

generating and storing section data in the storage 

device provided in the mobile unit, said section data being generated by selecting, from the traveled 

distance data, nodes Pj and Pk, which define contiguous sections PjPk, to which at least their geographical starting point and end point are 

assigned; and

generating a section data file from the section data and storing the section data file in the storage 

device provided in the mobile unit, said section data file being continuously supplemented and/or 

updated with section data newly generated by the 

mobile unit.

Id. col. 17 ll. 36–55 (emphases added to disputed claim 

terms). 

In other words, as the mobile unit (e.g., an automobile) travels, its location is determined at set time intervals and it generates and stores the data measured at 

each node. Id. col. 3 ll. 52–65. The location’s x and y

coordinates (for example, longitude and latitude), acquired using the Global Positioning System (“GPS”), are 

then assigned to that node. See, e.g., id. col. 3 l. 66–col. 4 

l. 1 (“In addition to the geographical coordinates xi, yi, of 

the points Pi, the direction of the movement i of the mobile 

unit can be recorded when generating the traveled disCase: 14-1699 Document: 47-2 Page: 3 Filed: 06/19/2015
4 TOMTOM, INC. v. ADOLPH

tance data.”); id. col. 5 ll. 17–23 (explaining a destination 

node as “given by its geographical coordinates”).1 

The second step of claim 1 involves generating and 

storing “section data,” which is generated from “traveled 

distance data” by selecting nodes that form contiguous 

1 Figure 2 in Appellant’s brief depicts its argument 

that the step in claim 1 involves “traveled distance data” 

representing a series of nodes. Appellant’s Figure 3

depicts an example of section data (e.g., P1P2, P2P3). 

Additionally, Appellant’s Figures 2 and 3 depict traveled 

distance data (P1, P2, P3, etc.) having a series of nodes (xi, 

yi), (x2, y2), etc. Appellant’s Br. 17. 

 

Case: 14-1699 Document: 47-2 Page: 4 Filed: 06/19/2015
TOMTOM, INC. v. ADOLPH 5

segments of road. Id. col. 17 ll. 45–50. A section may 

include more than two nodes. Id. col. 10 ll. 25–29.

According to Appellant, the data is converted using a 

binary format in order to be written to a file. The section 

data file is updated with new section data as the “mobile 

unit” continues traveling and generating new section 

data. “Claim 1 does not specify any particular storage 

medium used for practicing the multi-step method besides 

a ‘storage device.’” Appellant’s Br. 19.2 

During prosecution of the ’836 patent, the patent 

examiner identified a prior art reference that resulted in 

anticipatory rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (2000). 

The reference, U.S. Patent No. 4,982,332 (“Saito”), disclosed destination tracking systems similar to Dr. 

Adolph’s initially-claimed system. 

On February 28, 2001, when responding to the anticipation rejections, Dr. Adolph stated that “the method 

disclosed in Saito and the method of the present invention 

have several significant differences.” J.A. 212–13. Dr. 

2 Appellant’s Figure 5 illustrates its argument that 

the third step of method claim 1 involves generating, 

storing, and updating a “section data file.” Appellant’s Br. 

19; see ’836 patent col. 17 ll. 51–55.

 

Case: 14-1699 Document: 47-2 Page: 5 Filed: 06/19/2015
6 TOMTOM, INC. v. ADOLPH

Adolph distinguished claim 1 from Saito on the ground 

that “Saito requires that [(1)] an initial database representing road data or road ways be loaded into the system 

before the additional acquisition of data can take place,” 

and (2) “the step[s] of previously expressing each point on 

the roads in a map.” J.A. 213 (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). Relatedly, Dr. Adolph argued Saito 

teaches a method that requires a CD-ROM, integrated 

circuit card, or another storage device having a large 

capacity. J.A. 213. Thus, the Saito system “require[s], for 

[its] operation, the initial input of road data collected and 

generated by some external means.” J.A. 213 (emphasis 

added). Finally, Dr. Adolph contended that the ’836 

patent collects not only the geographic points of the areas 

traveled, but also the direction and distance traveled, as 

well as “the time relationship between the traveled 

points, and the fact that the traveled points are contiguous.” J.A. 5. 

On April 2, 2001, the examiner again rejected claim 1 

as anticipated by Saito and U.S. Patent No. 5,214,757 

(“Thad”). Dr. Adolf responded by again distinguishing 

Saito for the reasons stated above. Dr. Adolph then 

stated that “Thad only utilizes a GPS receiver to determine and store point coordinates according to a predetermined criteria but, does not generate or store any 

information relating to the contiguous sections.” J.A. 882

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). On 

August 29, 2001, the patent examiner allowed all claims 

of the ’836 patent, which issued on March 12, 2002. 

II. TomTom’s Cayman Data

Appellee TomTom, Inc.’s personal navigation devices 

(“PND”) use a “proprietary data format” called Cayman 

Data Format. Appellee’s Br. 13; J.A. 550. Cayman Data is 

essentially a GPS trail data record. According to 

TomTom’s expert, the data collection operates as follows: 

When a trip begins, the starting GPS latitude and longiCase: 14-1699 Document: 47-2 Page: 6 Filed: 06/19/2015
TOMTOM, INC. v. ADOLPH 7

tude readings are recorded by the PND in the Cayman log 

file. J.A. 429–30. Subsequently, in either one- or fivesecond intervals (depending on the device model and the 

software it uses), the device records the absolute value of 

the change in position from the first reading, called a 

delta value. J.A. 429. It will also record subsequent 

changes in position, called a delta-delta value. J.A. 437; 

Appellee’s Br. 13–14. When either the trip is completed 

or the GPS signal is lost, the device stops recording deltadelta values. When a new trip begins, or the GPS signal 

is regained, the process starts over by recording new 

starting latitude and longitude readings and subsequent 

delta and delta-delta values. 

The Cayman log files remain on the device until the 

user either directly uploads the data over a cellular 

connection or manually connects the PND to a computer 

using a USB cable and uploads the files to TomTom’s 

servers in the Netherlands using TomTom HOME software. J.A. 430. In the Netherlands, the data is validated, 

analyzed, and merged. This postprocessed data is combined with historical traffic data obtained from other 

sources to create speed profiles for each roadway. J.A. 

785, 814.

III. Proceedings

This dispute began in 2011 when Dr. Adolph’s German company, AOT Systems GmbH (“AOT”), accused 

TomTom of infringing EP 0 988 508 B1 (“EP ’508”), the 

’836 patent’s European counterpart. In June 2011, representatives of TomTom and Dr. Adolph met in person to 

discuss the infringement allegations. 

On February 3, 2012, AOT filed suit in Germany 

against one of TomTom’s customers, seeking damages and 

injunctive relief. Thereafter, TomTom filed a declaratory 

judgment action in the Eastern District of Virginia, 

alleging the ’836 patent was invalid as obvious and anticipated, and there was no infringement. On October 3, 

Case: 14-1699 Document: 47-2 Page: 7 Filed: 06/19/2015
8 TOMTOM, INC. v. ADOLPH

2012, Dr. Adolph filed a counterclaim, alleging TomTom 

directly and indirectly infringed the ’836 patent. 

On February 25, 2014, the district court issued its 

claim construction opinion and order. TomTom, Inc. v. 

AOT Sys. GmbH, No. 1:12-cv-528 (E.D. Va. Feb. 25, 2014) 

(claim construction memorandum opinion) (J.A. 1–29) 

(the “Opinion”); TomTom, Inc. v. AOT Sys. GmbH, No. 

1:12-cv-528 (E.D. Va. Feb. 25, 2014) (J.A. 30–31) (the 

“Order”). The court construed four claim terms relevant 

to this appeal: (a) “destination tracking system of at least 

one mobile unit,” (b) “generating and updating data for 

use in,” (c) “node,” and (d) “the storage device.” Order at 

1–2. Based on the claim constructions, TomTom moved 

for summary judgment and Dr. Adolph moved for reconsideration of the claim construction. 

On April 15, 2014, the district court denied Dr. 

Adolph’s motion and instead issued another written 

opinion in line with its previous opinion, “in the interest 

of ensuring that the claim constructions . . . are correct.” 

J.A. 1094. Accordingly, Dr. Adolph stipulated that he 

“will not be able to sustain [his] burden of proof to establish infringement of the ’836 patent against TomTom” 

because of the court’s claim constructions. J.A. 1102. The 

parties stipulated that several of the terms would “actually affect” an infringement analysis. The parties thus 

requested entry of final judgment of non-infringement. 

On July 8, 2014, the district court entered judgment of 

noninfringement in favor of TomTom. J.A. 32–35.

Dr. Adolph appeals; this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (2012). 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

“[W]hen the district court reviews only evidence intrinsic to the patent (the patent claims and specification[], 

along with the patent’s prosecution history), the judge’s 

Case: 14-1699 Document: 47-2 Page: 8 Filed: 06/19/2015
TOMTOM, INC. v. ADOLPH 9

determination will amount solely to a determination of 

law, and the Court of Appeals will review that construction de novo.” Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 

S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015) (italics omitted). “On the other 

hand, in considering extrinsic evidence, we review the 

subsidiary factual findings underlying the district court’s 

claim construction for clear error.” Vasudevan Software, 

Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 676 (Fed. Cir. 

2015).

II. This Court Can Consider All Claim Constructions 

on Appeal

As a threshold matter, Dr. Adolph argues this court 

must remand if “any claim construction is altered upon 

appellate review.” Appellant’s Br. 32. TomTom counters 

that “each claim construction provides a separate, independent basis for affirming the judgment of noninfringement, or else that claim construction is not 

properly before this court.” Appellee’s Br. 27. It is true 

this court has recognized it does not have subject matter 

jurisdiction to review a claim construction if that construction does not affect the issue of infringement. See, 

e.g., Jang v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 532 F.3d 1330, 1336 (Fed. 

Cir. 2008) (explaining that “Article III does not permit the 

courts to resolve issues when it is not clear that the 

resolution of the question will resolve a concrete controversy between interested parties,” and “[i]f we did not 

require clarification of the stipulated judgment in this 

case, we would risk rendering an advisory opinion as to 

claim construction issues that do not actually affect the 

infringement controversy between the parties”). 

Here, the parties’ stipulated judgment explicitly 

states, and provides detailed explanations for why, the 

claim constructions actually affect the infringement 

analysis. J.A. 1101–07. Furthermore, the parties’ summary judgment and reconsideration briefs (filed after the 

claim construction order) detail the effect the district 

Case: 14-1699 Document: 47-2 Page: 9 Filed: 06/19/2015
10 TOMTOM, INC. v. ADOLPH

court’s claim construction has on the issue of infringement. J.A. 805–23, 974–75. Accordingly, under Jang, 

this court will consider all of the district court’s claim 

constructions.

III. Claim Constructions 

A. The District Court Incorrectly Construed the Preamble Term “Method for Generating and Updating Data” As 

a Limitation

The preamble of claim 1 of the ’836 patent recites “[a] 

method for generating and updating data for use in [(“the 

generating language”)] a destination tracking system of at 

least one mobile unit comprising.” ’836 patent col. 17 ll. 

36–38. The district court held that because the phrase “at 

least one mobile unit” provides an antecedent basis for 

the later use of the terms “said mobile unit” and “the 

mobile unit” in the body of the claim, the entire preamble 

must be construed. Opinion at 17 (“Thus, because claim 1 

relies on its preamble for antecedent basis [for the mobile 

unit], the [other] disputed claim terms in the preamble 

must be construed.”); see also J.A. 1101 ¶ 1 (In the Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment, the parties stipulated 

that “[t]he Court determined that two phrases found in 

the preamble of claim 1 (‘generating and updating data 

for use in’ and ‘destination tracking system of at least one 

mobile unit’) must both be construed, in order to provide 

antecedent basis for the term ‘mobile unit,’ a term that is 

used in the body of claim 1. The [c]ourt construed these 

two preamble phrases separately.”). The court adopted 

TomTom’s construction and determined that the phrase 

“generating and updating data for use in” means “the 

data generated and updated by the mobile unit is used by 

that unit.” Opinion at 17 (emphasis added). 

Dr. Adolph contends the district court erred in determining that because it relied “on one portion of [the] 

preamble [i.e., ‘at least one mobile unit’] to resolve an 

antecedent basis concern” it should also convert “other 

Case: 14-1699 Document: 47-2 Page: 10 Filed: 06/19/2015
TOMTOM, INC. v. ADOLPH 11

unrelated portions of the preamble [i.e., the generating 

language] into new . . . substantive [claim] limitations.” 

Appellant’s Br. 46. TomTom counters “the preamble 

provides both antecedent basis for later claim elements 

and gives life, meaning, and vitality to the claims. The 

district court thus properly construed the entire preamble.” Appellee’s Br. 34–35. 

If a preamble “recites essential structure or steps, or if 

it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the 

claim,” then the preamble can limit the scope of a claim. 

Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 

F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). “Conversely, a preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee 

defines a structurally complete invention in the claim 

body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or 

intended use for the invention.’” Id. (quoting Rowe v. 

Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). “‘[W]hether to 

treat a preamble as a claim limitation is determined on 

the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and 

the invention described in the patent.’” Bicon, Inc. v. 

Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 952 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 

831 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).

The district court correctly concluded—and the parties do not seem to dispute—the phrase “destination 

tracking system of at least one mobile unit” is limiting 

because the claims do not concern just any “mobile unit,” 

but rather “generating and updating data for use in a 

destination tracking system of at least one mobile unit.” 

’836 patent col. 17 ll. 36–37 (emphasis added). However, 

the court erred in determining that it had to construe the 

entire preamble if it construed a portion of it. See, e.g., 

Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd., 781 F.2d 861, 868 (Fed. 

Cir. 1985), overruled in part on other grounds by Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc., 141 F.3d 

1059, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc in part). That the 

phrase in the preamble “destination tracking system of at 

Case: 14-1699 Document: 47-2 Page: 11 Filed: 06/19/2015
12 TOMTOM, INC. v. ADOLPH

least one mobile unit” provides a necessary structure for 

claim 1 does not necessarily convert the entire preamble 

into a limitation, particularly one that only states the 

intended use of the invention.

Thus, the generating language is not limiting and 

does not provide an antecedent basis for any of the claims. 

Rather, it is language stating a purpose or intended use

and employs the standard pattern of such language: the

words “a method for a purpose or intended use comprising,” followed by the body of the claim, in which the claim 

limitations describing the invention are recited. 

Additionally, the invention claimed in the ’836 patent 

is structurally complete without the generating language. 

“A preamble is not regarded as limiting . . . ‘when the 

claim body describes a structurally complete invention 

such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect 

the structure or steps of the claimed invention.’” Am. 

Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358–59 

(Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Catalina, 289 F.3d at 809). “If 

the preamble ‘is reasonably susceptible to being construed 

to be merely duplicative of the limitations in the body of 

the claim (and was not clearly added to overcome a [prior 

art] rejection), we do not construe it to be a separate 

limitation.’” Id. at 1359 (quoting Symantec Corp. v. 

Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288–89 (Fed. 

Cir. 2008)). 

Claim 1 is directed to a method for generating and 

updating travel-related data and does not require the 

data to be used later as the district court found. It requires only that the data be generated, selected, stored, 

and continuously updated. All of these steps are performed within the body of claim 1. Though the collected 

data could at some point be used in the context of a navigation system, this is not required of claim 1, and does not 

convert it into a claim limitation. 

Case: 14-1699 Document: 47-2 Page: 12 Filed: 06/19/2015
TOMTOM, INC. v. ADOLPH 13

The phrase “generating and updating data for use in” 

does not recite essential structure or steps, or give necessary life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. It was therefore error for the district court to use an antecedent basis 

rationale to justify converting this independent part of the 

preamble into a new claim limitation.

B. The Court Incorrectly Construed the Phrase “Destination Tracking System of at Least One Mobile Unit” 

In construing the phrase “destination tracking system 

of at least one mobile unit,” the district court concluded

Dr. Adolph disclaimed methods performed on “systems 

that (i) contain information relating to existing road 

networks, (ii) rely on an initial database, and (iii) require 

for operation the initial input of road data.” J.A. 1099. 

After reviewing the specification, file history, and prior

art, the court explained: “Dr. Adolph overcame the Saito 

prior art by limiting claim 1 to a method that necessarily 

does not include an initial map database.” Opinion at 19. 

The court thus construed the phrase to be “a destination 

tracking system of at least one mobile unit that does not 

contain initial information relating to existing road networks.” Order at 2 (emphasis added to language the court 

found to be disclaimed). 

Dr. Adolph argues the court incorrectly interpreted 

the prosecution history, and therefore misconstrued the 

phrase, and should replace “does not contain” maps with 

“does not require” maps. Appellant’s Br. 51. Specifically, 

Dr. Adolph contends that during prosecution he stated 

that the invention described by claim 1 does not require 

an initial map database, not that it does not contain one. 

Id. Appellees counter the district court correctly found 

prosecution history disclaimer when Dr. Adolph differentiated his invention from Saito. See Appellee’s Br. 31. 

In response to the patent examiner’s October 27, 

2000, office action rejecting the ’836 patent claims in light 

of Saito, Dr. Adolph explained that “[t]he method disCase: 14-1699 Document: 47-2 Page: 13 Filed: 06/19/2015
14 TOMTOM, INC. v. ADOLPH

closed in Saito and the method of the present invention 

have several significant differences.” J.A. 212–13. Dr. 

Adolph continued, “Saito requires that an initial database 

representing road data or road ways be loaded into the 

system before the additional acquisition of data can take 

place.” J.A. 213. However, according to Dr. Adolph, 

unlike Saito, the ’836 patent “aims at overcoming this 

significant limitation of Saito and other similar systems 

which require, for their operation, the initial input of road 

data collected and generated by some external means.” 

J.A. 213. Dr. Adolph also stated “Saito only stores data 

relating to the physical location of nodes and segments or 

roads connecting the nodes. The present invention instead has the specific objective of generating and storing

section data that include other relevant information in 

addition to the sole geographic location of nodes and 

sections.” J.A. 214. Dr. Adolph underscored his assertion 

that a map is not required by contrasting his invention 

with Saito’s, stating, “[t]he present invention allows even 

a single mobile unit to commence generating and storing 

data without the need for any initial information relating 

to existing road networks.” J.A. 213 (emphasis added). 

Finally, he stated:

In fact[,] the present invention, even if the systems consist of a single mobile unit, can generate 

and store data identifying the geographic location 

of points or nodes, the length and other characteristics of the sections containing nodes, constantly 

update the data relating to both nodes and sections if changes occur in the road network, and 

generate a complete road map with selected relevant information representing all of the sections 

traveled by the mobile unit over time. This can all 

be accomplished without the need for any initial 

network data. 

J.A. 213 (emphasis added). 

Case: 14-1699 Document: 47-2 Page: 14 Filed: 06/19/2015
TOMTOM, INC. v. ADOLPH 15

TomTom accurately argues that “one skilled in the art 

is entitled to rely on disclaimers made during prosecution 

to interpret patent claims.” Appellee’s Br. 29 (citing 

Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 

(Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The doctrine of prosecution disclaimer is

well established in Supreme Court precedent, precluding 

patentees from recapturing through claim interpretation 

specific meanings disclaimed during prosecution.”)). This 

court has 

declined to apply the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer where the alleged disavowal of claim 

scope is ambiguous. . . . But where the patentee 

has unequivocally disavowed a certain meaning to 

obtain his patent, the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer attaches and narrows the ordinary meaning of the claim congruent with the scope of the

surrender. 

Omega, 334 F.3d at 1324.

The district court’s construction was based on the 

prosecution history of the ’836 patent, but, as demonstrated above, nowhere does Dr. Adolph actually assert 

that the invention described by claim 1 does not contain 

an initial map database. Because there is no “clear and 

unambiguous” disclaimer that the tracking system does 

not contain an initial map database, we reverse the 

district court’s construction. Instead, there is a disclaimer 

that the system does not require an initial map database. 

Accordingly, we construe the phrase “destination tracking 

system of at least one mobile unit” to mean “a destination 

tracking system of at least one mobile unit that does not 

require initial information relating to existing road networks.”

TomTom also argues “this [c]ourt should give deference to Judge Ellis’s fact findings regarding the distinctions Dr. Adolph made in the specification and file history 

between his invention and prior art.” Appellee’s Br. 29–

Case: 14-1699 Document: 47-2 Page: 15 Filed: 06/19/2015
16 TOMTOM, INC. v. ADOLPH

30. However, the prosecution history is part of the intrinsic evidence, which this court reviews de novo. Enzo 

Biochem Inc. v. Applera Corp., 780 F.3d 1149, 1153 (Fed. 

Cir. 2015) (“‘[W]hen the district court reviews only evidence intrinsic to the patent (the patent claims and 

specifications, along with the patent’s prosecution history), the judge’s determination will amount solely to a 

determination of law, and the Court of Appeals will 

review that construction de novo.’”) (quoting Teva, 135 S. 

Ct. at 841). 

C. The District Court Incorrectly Construed “Node”

The district court construed the term “node” to mean 

an “intersection, origin, destination, or point at which the 

vehicle changes direction by more than a given predetermined value in a grid or road network.” Opinion at 12. 

Dr. Adolph contends the court’s construction “not only 

excludes the collection of travel data at predetermined 

time intervals, but it is wholly inconsistent with that 

basic requirement of Dr. Adolph’s invention.” Appellant’s 

Br. 34. According to Dr. Adolph,

[r]ather than permit a mobile unit to gather data 

wherever it goes, the [court’s] construction ignores 

the explicit language of Claim 1 (which collects 

traveled distance data at predetermined time intervals) and improperly limits the collection of 

travel data to an “intersection, origin, destination, 

or point at which the vehicle changes direction by 

more than a predetermined value in a grid or road 

network.” 

Id. 

We disagree with Dr. Adolph that “[c]laim 1 specifically requires travel data, in the form of nodes, to be collected ‘at least at predetermined time intervals.’” Id. at 33. 

The claim requires “generating and storing traveled 

distance data . . . at least at predetermined time intervals, 

Case: 14-1699 Document: 47-2 Page: 16 Filed: 06/19/2015
TOMTOM, INC. v. ADOLPH 17

wherein the traveled distance data represent traveled 

sections by at least a series of nodes Pi.” ’836 patent col. 

17 ll. 38–43. The specification also indicates that “at least 

at predetermined time intervals” is an additional claim 

limitation separate from “nodes.” Id. col. 18 ll. 35–41. As 

TomTom notes, “[n]othing in the district court’s construction precludes collecting data at predetermined time 

intervals, as that is a separate element of claim 1 that 

was not construed.” Appellee’s Br. 25. 

Dr. Adolph alternatively argues that “[a] node is simply a geographic location” because the ’836 patent does not 

explicitly define the term “node.” Appellant’s Br. 41. 

TomTom counters that this definition “renders the term 

meaningless and is inconsistent with the specification.” 

Appellee’s Br. 47. We agree a “node” means a “geographic 

location.” For instance, the specification states:

After completion of a trip or even during the trip, 

section data are generated from the traveled distance or route data stored in the trip storage unit 

40, compressing the traveled distance data by 

dropping individual points Pi and choosing those 

points Pj and Pk which . . . are most characteristic 

in defining a section of the route. For example, 

characteristic route nodes Pj and Pk are nodes 

where the vehicle direction i changes by more 

than a given predetermined value, or nodes at the 

intersection of sections oriented in different directions, or nodes that are otherwise conspicuous. 

The sections PjPk calculated from the route nodes 

Pi stored in the trip store are saved in the section 

data storage unit 42 in the following manner. 

’836 patent col. 10 ll. 8–21 (emphases added). 

As recited above, the terms “points” and “nodes” are 

used in the specification to refer to the same data—

“individual points Pi” and “route nodes Pi.” When “node” 

appears in the patent and in its claims, the mathematical 

Case: 14-1699 Document: 47-2 Page: 17 Filed: 06/19/2015
18 TOMTOM, INC. v. ADOLPH

expression “Pi” often follows immediately. See, e.g., id.

col. 10, ll. 14–29; id. col. 17 ll. 43–44. And when “Pi” 

appears in the patent, the phrase comprising (or containing) “geographical coordinates xi, yi” is often present. See, 

e.g., id. col. 3 l. 66; id. col. 5 l. 51; id. col. 9 l. 53; id. col. 10 

ll. 22–23. 

According to TomTom, “[Dr.] Adolph presents no compelling evidence that ‘node’ and ‘point’ are the same, and 

therefore, the terms should be presumed to be different, 

as the district court’s construction properly recognizes.” 

Appellee’s Br. 49. TomTom relies, in part, on Figure 4 in 

the ’836 patent, reproduced below, to argue “points 1–16 

are nodes, because they are starting points, end points, 

intersections, or places where the vehicle changes directions.” Id. “On the other hand,” TomTom argues, “each ‘x’ 

along the route is a point . . . , but those points are not 

nodes, as they are not characteristic of road segments.” 

Id. 

’836 patent fig. 4. TomTom misunderstands Dr. Adolph’s 

use of the “x” notation in the figures of the ’836 patent. 

The specification explains that the “x” notation is used in 

Figure 4 as indicating a recommended route from node S 

Case: 14-1699 Document: 47-2 Page: 18 Filed: 06/19/2015
TOMTOM, INC. v. ADOLPH 19

to node Z, not to distinguish points from nodes. Id.; id.

col. 13 ll. 32–34 (“The recommended route S→

2→6→7→8→12→Z is represented by ‘x’ in Fig. 4.”). 

“Claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meanings to one of skill in the art when read in 

the context of the specification and prosecution history.” 

Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 758 F.3d 1362, 

1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 

F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). “There are 

only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, 

or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the 

claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Here, there is neither lexicography nor disavowal. Rather, the ’836 patent uses the term “node” to mean, simply, a “geographic location.” This construction is consistent 

with the specification, which associates nodes with various geographical locations, including origins and destinations, and intersections. ’836 patent col. 7 ll. 41–44. The 

district court’s construction is therefore reversed. 

D. The District Court Incorrectly Construed the 

Phrases “Storing Section Data/Section Data File in the

Storage Device”

Claim 1 of the ’836 patent recites “storing traveled 

distance data in at least one storage device.” Id. col. 17 ll. 

38–39 (emphasis added). The court construed this to 

mean “storing traveled distance data in at least one device

used for storing data.” Opinion at 25 (emphasis added). 

Dr. Adolph does not appeal this construction. 

Claim 1 additionally recites “storing section data in 

the storage device” and “storing the section data file in 

the storage device.” ’836 patent col. 17 ll. 45, 52. 

Relying on an embodiment described in the ’836 patent’s specification, the district court held that each type 

Case: 14-1699 Document: 47-2 Page: 19 Filed: 06/19/2015
20 TOMTOM, INC. v. ADOLPH

of data identified in claim 1 must be stored in a different 

storage device: 

As stated above, the patent specification makes 

clear that (i) traveled distance data is stored in a 

“trip storage unit or motion storage unit,” (ii) section data is stored in a “section data storage unit,” 

and (iii) the section data file is stored in the “section data file storage unit.” Thus, the portion of 

TomTom’s construction that clarifies that each 

type of data is stored in a different storage device 

is the correct construction. 

Opinion at 27 (referencing ’836 patent col. 9 ll. 21–25). 

Accordingly, “storing section data in the storage device” 

was construed by the district court to mean “storing 

section data in a separate storage device than the traveled 

distance data,” and “storing the section file data in the 

storage device” was construed as “storing the section data

file in a separate storage device than the traveled distance 

data and section data.” Opinion at 27–28 (emphases 

added). These constructions were erroneous. 

As an initial matter, this court has repeatedly cautioned against importing limitations from an embodiment 

into the claims. Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,

755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“While we read 

claims in view of the specification, of which they are a 

part, we do not read limitations from the embodiments in 

the specification into the claims. We depart from the 

plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms based on the 

specification in only two instances: lexicography and 

disavowal.”) (citing Liebel–Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 

358 F.3d 898, 904 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir.

2012)). 

“The starting point for any claim construction must be 

the claims themselves.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. HewlettPackard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). As 

Case: 14-1699 Document: 47-2 Page: 20 Filed: 06/19/2015
TOMTOM, INC. v. ADOLPH 21

noted, claim terms are generally given their plain and 

ordinary meanings to one of skill in the art when read in 

the context of the specification and prosecution history;

the only exceptions to this general rule are when the 

patentee acts as his own lexicographer or when he disavows claim scope. Golden Bridge, 758 F.3d at 1365. 

Here, claim 1 requires section data to be stored in “the 

storage device.” ’836 patent col. 17 l. 45 (emphasis added). Claim 1 also requires the section data file to be 

stored in “the storage device.” Id. col. 17 l. 52 (emphasis

added). “The storage device” can only refer to one thing: 

the “at least one storage device” found in the first limitation of claim 1. Id. col. 17 ll. 38–39 (emphasis added). 

Nothing in the claim language suggests the section data 

and the section data file would be stored in any storage 

device other than “the storage device.” Id. col. 17 l. 45

(emphasis added). Certainly, the claims do not require 

the data be stored on different devices. 

Additionally, the specification discloses the different 

data types can be stored in the same storage device, 

contrary to the district court’s interpretation. In explaining how one could interrupt the generation of both traveled distance data and section data if any of that data 

already exists in the storage unit, one portion of the 

specification recites:

To avoid unnecessar[ily] overburdening the storage device provided in the mobile unit, additional 

provisions can be made to permit the generation 

of traveled distance data and/or section data to be 

interrupted if the newly generated data already 

exist in the storage device of the mobile unit, and 

to cause said generation to be restarted if the 

newly generated data have not yet been stored in 

the storage device of the mobile unit.

Id. col. 4 ll. 6–13 (emphases added). 

Case: 14-1699 Document: 47-2 Page: 21 Filed: 06/19/2015
22 TOMTOM, INC. v. ADOLPH

Therefore, these terms should be construed to reflect 

their plain and ordinary meaning: “storage device” means 

“storage device.” It does not mean the claimed invention 

must use a different storage device for each type of data, 

as all three types of data can be stored on the same storage device as described in claim 1.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the appealed constructions of the district court are reversed, and the case 

is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this 

opinion. 

REVERSED AND REMANDED 

Case: 14-1699 Document: 47-2 Page: 22 Filed: 06/19/2015