Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01188/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-01188-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIMPSON STRONG-TIE COMPANY, 

INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

OZ-POST INTERNATIONAL, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:18-cv-01188-WHO 

SECOND CLAIM CONSTRUCTION 

ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 151

Before me is a second round of disputes over claim terms from two patents that were 

recently added to this declaratory judgment action brought by Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. 

(“Simpson”) against patent owner Oz-Post International LLC dba OZCO Building Products 

(“OZCO”). My constructions of the parties’ disputed terms follow. 

BACKGROUND

Simpson and OZCO are competitor companies that design and manufacture connectors and 

anchors for the construction industry. Until March of this year, this case involved assertions of 

infringement, noninfringement, and invalidity related to two patents assigned to OZCO: U.S. 

Patent No. 9,957,998 (“the ’998 Patent”) and U.S. Design Patent No. D798,701 (“the ’701 

Patent”). The ’998 Patent aims to simulate antique architectural hardware (like rivet, nail, and pin 

or nut, bolt, and washer connectors) with mounting hardware that is both easier to install and more 

cost effective. ’998 Patent 1:30–31, 53–56. 

On March 26, 2019, I construed the ten most significant claim terms from the ’998 Patent.1 

First Claim Construction Order [Dkt. No. 87]. On November 14, 2019, I granted partial summary 

 

1 The parties did not request construction of the ’701 Patent. 

Case 3:18-cv-01188-WHO Document 160 Filed 06/15/20 Page 1 of 13
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

judgment in favor of Simpson. Dkt. No. 129. 

On March 10, I granted the parties’ joint request to vacate the trial date and set a new case 

schedule that would allow the addition of two patents issued to OZCO in December 2019: U.S. 

Patent No. 10,520,007 (“’007 Patent”) and U.S. Design Patent No. D870,545 (“’545 Patent”). 

Both the ’007 and ’545 Patents are continuations of the ’998 Patent. Before me now are the 

parties’ disputed claim terms from those two patents. After briefing by both sides, a virtual claim 

construction hearing occurred on June 5, 2020. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Claim construction is a matter of law. See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 

U.S. 370, 372 (1996); Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

“Generally, a claim term is given its ordinary and customary meaning—the meaning that a term 

would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” 

Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., 822 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). In determining the proper construction of a claim, a court 

begins with the intrinsic evidence of record, consisting of the claim language, the patent 

specification, and, if in evidence, the prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 

1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. “A claim term used in multiple claims 

should be construed consistently . . . .” Inverness Med. Switzerland GmbH v. Princeton 

Biomeditech Corp., 309 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

“The appropriate starting point . . . is always with the language of the asserted claim itself.” 

Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[T]he ordinary 

and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of 

ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date 

of the patent application.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “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 a claim term either in the specification or during 

prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 

Such redefinition or disavowal need not be express to be clear. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City

Case 3:18-cv-01188-WHO Document 160 Filed 06/15/20 Page 2 of 13
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of New York v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 

Like a person of ordinary skill in the art, courts read terms in the context of the claim and 

of the entire patent, including the specification. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. The specification is 

“the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. “The 

construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s 

description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Renishaw PLC v. 

Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The court may also consider 

the prosecution history of the patent, if in evidence. Markman, 52 F.3d at 980. The prosecution 

history may “inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor 

understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of 

prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 

1317 (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582-83); see also Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc., 402 F.3d 1371, 

1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The purpose of consulting the prosecution history in construing a claim is 

to exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution.”) (internal quotations 

omitted).

In most situations, analysis of this intrinsic evidence alone will resolve claim construction 

disputes, Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583; however, a court can further consult “trustworthy extrinsic 

evidence” to compare its construction to “widely held understandings in the pertinent technical 

field,” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

Extrinsic evidence “consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, 

including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Markman, 52 F.3d at 

980. All extrinsic evidence should be evaluated in light of the intrinsic evidence, Phillips, 415 

F.3d at 1319, and courts should not rely on extrinsic evidence in claim construction to contradict 

the meaning of claims discernible from examination of the claims, the written description, and the 

prosecution history, Pitney Bowes, 182 F.3d at 1308 (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583).

DISCUSSION

OZCO and Simpson have reached agreement on the appropriate constructions for the 

following six terms: 

Case 3:18-cv-01188-WHO Document 160 Filed 06/15/20 Page 3 of 13
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Claim Term Agreed Construction 

“annular surface” “a ring-shaped surface between two circles”

“cap” “a closed cover”

“disposed radially” “extending uniformly from and 

perpendicular to a straight line running 

through the center of the washer/nut 

member”

“flange portion” “a projecting edge”

“plurality” “two or more”

“cap,” “screw,” and “nut-and-washer member” The “cap,” “screw,” and “nut-and-washer 

member” are separate elements 

I. THE ’007 PATENT 

The parties disagree over the appropriate constructions for the following terms from the 

’007 Patent. 

A. Preambles 

There are two disputes over preambles in the ’007 Patent: first, how to define them, 

namely whether the claims have a “preamble-within-a-preamble” structure, and second, whether 

the preambles are limiting. I will adopt Simpson’s proposals on both questions with the exception 

of claim 8, which is a method claim, based on Simpson’s stipulation during the hearing. 

Claim Simpson’s Proposal OZCO’s Proposal Court’s Ruling 

Claim 1 

Preamble

“A decorative hardware 

assembly, comprising: 

a nut-and- washer 

connector configured to 

structurally connect to 

a first architectural 

member, the nut-andwasher connector 

comprising:”

Not limiting 

“A decorative 

hardware assembly, 

comprising:” 

Limiting 

“A decorative hardware 

assembly, comprising: a 

nut-and- washer connector 

configured to structurally 

connect to a first 

architectural member, the 

nut-and-washer connector 

comprising:”

Not limiting 

Claim 6 

Preamble

“A decorative hardware 

assembly, comprising: 

a nut-and- washer 

member configured to 

structurally connect to 

a first architectural 

member, the nut-and-

“A decorative 

hardware assembly, 

comprising:” 

“A decorative hardware 

assembly, comprising: a 

nut-and- washer member 

configured to structurally 

connect to a first 

architectural member, the 

nut-and-washer member 

comprising:” 

Case 3:18-cv-01188-WHO Document 160 Filed 06/15/20 Page 4 of 13
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

washer member 

comprising:”

Not limiting Limiting Not limiting 

Claim 8 

Preamble

“A method of 

simulating an 

architectural hardware 

installation, 

comprising: providing 

a simulated nut-andwasher member 

comprising:” 

Not limiting 

“A method of 

simulating an 

architectural hardware 

installation, 

comprising:”

Limiting 

“A method of simulating 

an architectural hardware 

installation, comprising:”

Not limiting 

Claim 12 

Preamble 

“A decorative hardware 

assembly, comprising: 

a nut-and-washer 

connector configured to 

structurally connect to 

an architectural 

member comprising:” 

Not limiting 

“A decorative 

hardware assembly, 

comprising:”

Limiting 

“A decorative hardware 

assembly, comprising: a 

nut-and-washer connector 

configured to structurally 

connect to an architectural 

member comprising:” 

Not limiting

A preamble encompasses the introductory words of a claim. Corning Glass Works v. 

Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “In the parlance of patent law, the 

transition ‘comprising’ creates a presumption that the recited elements are only a part of the 

device, that the claim does not exclude additional, unrecited elements.” Crystal Semiconductor 

Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l, 246 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001). But, “when used 

in the body of a claim, and not as a transition, the term ‘comprising’ should be interpreted 

according to the normal rules of claim interpretation.” Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., No. 11-

cv-2709-EMC, 2014 WL 1365422, at *23 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2014). 

A preamble is generally not construed to limit the claim language that follows. See 

Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs., 802 F.3d 1283, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015). It may be limiting “if it 

recites essential structure or steps, or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the 

claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). But a preamble is not limiting if it “merely states the 

purpose or intended use of an invention,” see Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, 778 F.3d 1021, 

Case 3:18-cv-01188-WHO Document 160 Filed 06/15/20 Page 5 of 13
6

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1023 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), or if it “is duplicative of the 

limitations in the body of the claim and merely provides context for the limitations,” see Summit 6, 

802 F.3d at 1292.

The parties dispute how to define the preambles and whether the preambles are limiting. 

OZCO Opening 8–11; Simpson Response 17–22. Although the preamble-within-a-preamble 

structure is “unconventional,” the Federal Circuit has approved of it. See Microprocessor 

Enhancement Corp. v. Tex. Instruments Inc., 520 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008); HTC Corp. v. 

IPCom GmbH & Co., KG, 667 F.3d 1270, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Further, I construed the ’998 

Patent as having the following preamble-within-a-preamble structure: “An apparatus comprising: 

a washer/nut member, comprising: . . .” ’998 Patent 6:22–23. I determined that “washer/nut 

member” was a non-limiting preamble because it served as a contextual label for the body of the 

claim that followed rather than being essential to understanding the invention. 

Consistent with the’998 Patent, I agree with Simpson that claims 1, 6, and 12 have nonlimiting preamble-within-a-preamble structures. First, each of these claims has an initial 

paragraph ending with “comprising”—which the parties agree is a preamble—followed 

immediately by a second paragraph also ending with “comprising.” While the use of the word 

comprising does not necessarily indicate that the preceding words are a preamble, here the 

structure shows that drafter intended this language to provide context for the body of the claims 

that follow. 

Second, reading the claims as a whole, it is clear that the disputed second preambles

describe the intended use of the invention. The words “configured to” indicate a reference to use. 

Further, some of the disputed language of the ’007 Patent—“nut-and-washer connector” (claims 1 

and 12) and “nut-and-washer member” (claims 6 and 8)—directly mirrors the “washer/nut 

member” preamble from the ’998 Patent. All of the language serves as a label for the indented 

claim elements that follow (e.g., “a base plate . . . a cylindrical portion . . . and an inner annular 

surface . . .”). Further, the fact that the language at issue repeats (e.g., “configured to structurally 

connect to a first architectural member” in claims 1, 6, and 12) shows that it is not intended to add

a claim limitation. 

Case 3:18-cv-01188-WHO Document 160 Filed 06/15/20 Page 6 of 13
7

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

OZCO’s general assertion that that the invention cannot be understood without this 

language is unpersuasive. See OZCO Opening 11. The bodies of the claims that follow recite a 

structurally complete invention, and the preambles state the invention’s intended use. They are 

not “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.” See Catalina Mktg., 289 F.3d at

808. Further, as I noted in the context of the ’998 Patent, the construction I adopt here does not 

eliminate the preamble language or instruct the jury to ignore it; instead, it properly characterizes 

the language for the jury’s understanding. 

As far as claim 8, which is a method claim, at the hearing Simpson indicated agreement 

with my tentative construction adopting OZCO’s proposal that only the initial language constitutes

a preamble; however, it asked that I clarify that the phrase “nut-and-washer member” is not 

limiting. Consistent with the ’998 Patent, that term (in its various forms) does not constitute a 

limitation separate and apart from the remainder of the claim language. 

B. “disposed within” terms 

The parties dispute three appearances of the term “disposed within,” which, per the parties’ 

agreement, I construed to mean “situated entirely within” in the context of the ’998 Patent. The 

question before me is whether there is support for OZCO’s contention that the context surrounding 

the “disposed within” term in the ’007 Patent necessitates a different construction than the one it 

agreed to in the context of the ’998 Patent. 

Term Simpson’s Proposal OZCO’s Proposal Court’s Ruling 

“disposed within 

the intermediate 

cylindrical 

surface” (claims 

1, 12)

“situated entirely 

within the intermediate 

cylindrical surface” 

“situated within the 

radius of the 

intermediate 

cylindrical surface” 

Plain and ordinary 

meaning 

“disposed within 

the first circular 

opening” (claims 

6, 8)

“situated entirely 

within the first circular 

opening 

“situated within the 

first circular opening” 

Plain and ordinary 

meaning 

“disposed within” 

(claims 1, 6, 8, 

12)

“situated entirely 

within”

Term should be 

construed with 

surrounding terms 

Plain and ordinary 

meaning 

Simpson argues that I should import the parties’ agreed-upon construction for the ’998 

Patent into the related ’007 Patent, and it criticizes OZCO’s shifting constructions over the course 

Case 3:18-cv-01188-WHO Document 160 Filed 06/15/20 Page 7 of 13
8

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of the parties’ exchanges prior to the briefing before me now. Simpson Response 23–27. While 

OZCO acknowledges the presumption that the same claim term in related patents should have the 

same construction, it argues that I am compelled to construe this term differently in the ’007 

Patent. OZCO Opening 12; see Omega Eng’g, Inc, v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. 

Cir. 2003) (“[W]e presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same claim term in the same 

patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning.”). According to OZCO, the 

“situated entirely within” construction lacks support in the claim language or the specification of 

the ’007 Patent. OZCO Opening 12. While Simpson’s proposed construction made no difference 

for the ’998 Patent, to apply it in the ’007 Patent would improperly limit the scope of the claims. 

Simpson counters that there is no compelling reason to alter the term’s construction because “[the 

two patents] have identical specifications, the claims cover the same disclosed embodiment, the 

patent claims in each patent reference both ‘disposed within’ and ‘substantially flush,’ and Ozco 

has not introduced any extrinsic evidence to show a different context exists here.” Simpson 

Response 24. 

I will adopt the plain and ordinary meaning for “disposed within” because I agree with 

OZCO that it is improper to import the “situated entirely within” construction into the ’007 

Patent.2 Simpson’s position relies heavily on the parties’ agreed construction for the ’998 Patent 

rather than the ’007 Patent’s particular claim language, asserting that the ’007 Patent’s 

specification is materially the same and that “the claim term is used in an identical contexts in the 

two related patents.” Simpson Response 31. When addressing the ’998 Patent, I did not indicate a 

tentative position on the appropriate construction of “disposed within” because I did not intend to 

construe it. Dkt. No. 83. Nor did I analyze the term in the First Claim Construction Order 

because the parties had agreed on a construction during the hearing. Although the earlier 

construction creates a presumption, that presumption is surmountable. 

OZCO has overcome the presumption by raising reasons why the ’007 Patent’s claim 

 

2 OZCO does not provide sufficient support for its proposal adding the term “radius” to the 

construction of “disposed within the intermediate cylindrical surface.” In addition, Simpson raises 

asserted conflicts between the construction and the patent’s prosecution history. Simpson 

Response 31–32. 

Case 3:18-cv-01188-WHO Document 160 Filed 06/15/20 Page 8 of 13
9

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

language does not support the “situated entirely within” construction. First, OZCO notes the 

absence of “substantially flush” in the ’007 Patent’s independent claims, by contrast with the ’998 

Patent. According to it, to construe “disposed within” as “situated entirely within” would render 

superfluous the “substantially flush” language in dependent claims 5 and 11. OZCO Opening 14; 

see Trustees of Columbia Univ. in City of New York v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. 

Cir. 2016) (“[E]ach claim in a patent is presumptively different in scope.”) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). I agree that the absence of “substantially flush” makes the “situated 

entirely within” construction problematic in the ’007 Patent. While Simpson asserts that a term 

from another claim should not impact the construction of “disposed within,” the presence of that 

language in claim 1 of the ’998 Patent was the basis for OZCO’s agreement on the “situated 

entirely within” construction. 

OZCO next notes that a circular opening as described in claims 6 and 8 need only be twodimensional, while the “situated entirely within” construction suggests that there is necessarily a 

height. OZCO Opening 14. While Simpson counters that the construction “works” for either twoor three-dimensional openings, I agree with OZCO that this difference in language suggests an 

improper construction. See Simpson Response 32–33. 

Simpson raises two additional reasons why I should not alter the construction of this term 

for the ’007 Patent. First, it asserts that OZCO’s experts testified that “disposed within” means

“situated entirely within.” Simpson Response 11–12. But as OZCO points out, their opinions and 

understandings stemmed from the parties’ agreed-upon construction. If, as Simpson argued at the 

hearing, their opinions indeed encompassed an opinion regarding the vertical relationship in 

addition to the horizontal relationship, Simpson can raise any inconsistencies on crossexamination. Second, Simpson argues that a different construction will cause jury confusion. 

Particularly because I am adopting the plain and ordinary meaning, I disagree. The jury will still 

be instructed that in the ’998 Patent, “disposed within” means “situated entirely within.”3 The 

 

3 Contrary to Simpson’s suggestion, OZCO will not be permitted to rely on this construction in the 

context of the ’998 Patent. See Simpson Response 30 (“In reality, Ozco seeks a construction of 

‘disposed within’ with regard to the ’007 Patent that it will likely attempt to rely on to argue 

infringement with regard to the ’998 Patent.”).

Case 3:18-cv-01188-WHO Document 160 Filed 06/15/20 Page 9 of 13
10

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“disposed within” terms in the ’007 will not be highlighted for the jury, and jurors will instead be 

instructed to apply the plain and ordinary meaning to all the patents’ remaining terms. The 

possibility of jury confusion is not sufficiently great to justify a construction that is not supported 

by the claim language in the ’007 Patent. 

C. “substantially flush” (claims 5, 11)

Term Simpson’s Proposal OZCO’s Proposal Court’s Ruling 

“substantially 

flush” 

“substantially level” 

or, in the alternative, 

plain and ordinary 

meaning

“adjacent and 

substantially level” 

Plain and ordinary 

meaning 

In the first round of claim construction, neither party asked that I construe the term 

“substantially flush” despite its appearance in claim 1 of the ’998 Patent. See ’998 Patent 6:39.

Now, however, both parties propose a construction of “substantially level,” and OZCO relies on A 

Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering to argue that I should add “adjacent.” OZCO Opening 16. 

I will not adopt either party’s proposal because they will create not aid the fact finder in any 

meaningful way and thus will create an unnecessary inconsistency between the ’007 and ’998 

Patents. As both sides agreed in the past, this term needs no construction. 

II. THE D’545 PATENT 

Term Simpson’s Proposal OZCO’s Proposal Court’s Ruling 

“The 

ornamental 

design for a 

threaded 

connector, as 

shown and 

described.” 

“The ornamental design 

for a threaded connector, 

as shown and described 

in Figures 1-5. The 

broken lines on the cap 

shown in Figures 1 and 2, 

and the length of the 

threaded shaft (shown 

with a symbolic break) in 

Figures 1, 4 and 5, form 

no part of the claimed 

design. The design in 

Figures 1 and 2 shows, 

among other things, a 

threaded connection 

between the cap and the 

washer/nut member. The 

claimed design must be 

“The ornamental 

design for a threaded 

connector, as shown 

and described in 

Figures 1-5. The 

threaded connector is 

shown with a symbolic 

break in its length. The 

broken lines and the 

appearance of any 

portion of the article 

between the break lines 

forms no part of the 

claimed design.”

“The ornamental 

design for a threaded 

connector, as shown 

and described in 

Figures 1-5. The 

threaded connector is 

shown with a 

symbolic break in its 

length. The broken 

lines and the 

appearance of any 

portion of the article 

between the break 

lines forms no part of 

the claimed design.”

Case 3:18-cv-01188-WHO Document 160 Filed 06/15/20 Page 10 of 13
11

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

examined as a whole

without giving undue 

consideration to 

particular features of the 

claimed design.”

Although constructions of design patents are generally disfavored, here the parties agree 

that a construction would aid the jury, and their requests are substantially similar. I will adopt 

OZCO’s proposed construction because Simpson’s is unnecessarily long and improperly places 

undue emphasis on one aspect of the design. “[The Federal Circuit] has cautioned, and continues 

to caution, trial courts about excessive reliance on a detailed verbal description in a design 

infringement case.” Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

Verbal descriptions run “the risk of placing undue emphasis on particular features of the design 

and the risk that a finder of fact will focus on each individual described feature in the verbal 

description rather than on the design as a whole.” Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 

665, 679–80 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Simpson’s proposed construction places undue emphasis on one 

feature in Figures 1 and 2 and then attempts to remedy the problem its construction has introduced 

by adding that the jury should assess the design as a whole. 

Simpson asks that even if I omit its proposed language from the construction, I nonetheless 

order that OZCO may not argue that the ’545 Patent claims anything other than a threaded 

connection between the cap and washer/nut member, as illustrated by the swirled lines in Figures 

1 and 2. Simpson Response 40. The parties agree that the ’545 Patent can only claim the ’998 

Patent’s priority date as long as its design was disclosed in the ’998 Patent. According to 

Simpson, the images in the ’998 Patent foreclose the argument that there is anything other than a 

threaded connection between the cap and washer/nut member. Id. at 39. OZCO counters that 

there is no support for Simpson’s suggestion that a utility patent’s images—not its written 

description—can place such limits on the scope of a design patent. I agree with OZCO; I am not 

persuaded it is foreclosed from making this argument. Simpson is free to cross-examine OZCO’s 

experts on the arguments it has raised before me now. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the ’007 and ’545 Patent terms are construed as indicated 

Case 3:18-cv-01188-WHO Document 160 Filed 06/15/20 Page 11 of 13
12

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

below: 

Claim Court’s Tentative 

“annular surface” “a ring-shaped surface between two circles”

“cap” “a closed cover”

“disposed radially” “extending uniformly from and perpendicular to a 

straight line running through the center of the 

washer/nut member”

“flange portion” “a projecting edge”

“plurality” “two or more”

“cap,” “screw,” and “nut-andwasher member”The “cap,” “screw,” and “nut-and-washer member” 

are separate elements 

Claim 1 Preamble “A decorative hardware assembly, comprising: a 

nut-and- washer connector configured to structurally 

connect to a first architectural member, the nut-andwasher connector comprising:”

Not limiting 

Claim 6 Preamble “A decorative hardware assembly, comprising: a 

nut-and- washer member configured to structurally 

connect to a first architectural member, the nut-andwasher member comprising:”

Not limiting

Claim 8 Preamble “A method of simulating an architectural hardware 

installation, comprising:” 

Not limiting 

Claim 12 Preamble “A decorative hardware assembly, comprising: a 

nut-and-washer connector configured to structurally 

connect to an architectural member comprising:” 

Not limiting 

“disposed within the intermediate 

cylindrical surface” (claims 1, 12)

Plain and ordinary meaning

“disposed within the first circular 

opening” (claims 6, 8)

Plain and ordinary meaning 

“disposed within” (claims 1, 6, 8, 

12)

Plain and ordinary meaning 

“substantially flush” (claims 5, 11) Plain and ordinary meaning 

“The ornamental design for a 

threaded connector, as shown and 

described.”

“The ornamental design for a threaded connector, as 

shown and described in Figures 1-5. The threaded 

connector is shown with a symbolic break in its 

length. The broken lines and the appearance of any 

portion of the article between the break lines forms 

no part of the claimed design.”

Case 3:18-cv-01188-WHO Document 160 Filed 06/15/20 Page 12 of 13
13

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 15, 2020 

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-01188-WHO Document 160 Filed 06/15/20 Page 13 of 13