Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04374/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04374-51/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 1

Neither party suggests the construction of “common surface” should vary based on

either the claim or patent in which it is contained.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CELERITY, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant

 v.

ULTRA CLEAN TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS

AND SERVICE, INC.

Defendant/Counterclaimant

and

ULTRA CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.

Defendant /

No. C-05-4374 MMC

(Consolidated with C-05-3560 MMC)

ORDER CONSTRUING “COMMON

SURFACE”

Before the Court are the parties’ respective proposed constructions for the term

“common surface” in U.S. Patents Nos. 6,394,138 (“‘138 Patent”) and 6,435,215 (“‘215

Patent”).1

 Having considered the parties’ respective submissions, the Court rules as

follows.

The Court declines to adopt either party’s proposed construction.

Ultra Clean Technology Systems and Service, Inc. (“UCT”) proposes that “common

surface” be construed as “an undivided, continuous area.” Such proposed construction,

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 425 Filed 06/01/07 Page 1 of 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

2

however, is inconsistent with the patents’s use of “common surface” in Claims 1 and 6 of

the ‘215 Patent, each of which includes as a limitation a “bridging component having an

inlet and an outlet accessing a common surface of the bridging component.” See ‘215

Patent col. 12 ll. 33-35; id. col. 13 ll. 1-3. The specification provides, as examples of 

bridging components, “U-tube type bridge connectors, having long connector legs and short

cross tubes connected together by Cajon elbows,” see id. col. 4 ll. 19-21, and contains an

illustration of a “jumper,” in the shape of a U, with an inlet accessing the base of one leg

and an outlet accessing the base of the other leg, see id. col. 8 ll. 61 - col. 9 ll. 20; id. Figs.

17, 18. In other words, a preferred embodiment of the invention has a “bridging

component” with an inlet and outlet accessing a “common surface” that is not continuous

and undivided. The Court finds no basis to construe the claims in a manner that would

exclude such preferred embodiment. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F. 3d

1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (providing claim construction that excludes preferred

embodiment “is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary

support”).

Celerity, Inc. (“Celerity”) proposes that “common surface” be construed as “one or

more surfaces lying in a common plane.” Celerity’s proposed construction likewise is

inconsistent with the patent’s use of “common surface” in Claims 1 and 6 of the ‘215

Patent, each of which includes the following limitations: “a first manifold having an inlet and

an outlet accessing a common surface of the first manifold” and “a second manifold having

an inlet and an outlet accessing a common surface of the second manifold.” See ‘215

Patent col. 12 ll. 20-21, 26-27; id. col. 12 ll. 55-56, 61-62 (emphasis added). Such

limitations cannot reasonably be interpreted as including an inlet and outlet accessing

multiple surfaces of a single manifold. Similarly, Celerity’s proposed construction is at odds

with the specification of the ‘138 Patent, which describes “the common surface for each of

the respective adjacent manifold blocks.” See ‘138 Patent col. 3 ll. 41-43 (emphasis

added).

In determining the proper construction of “common surface”, the Court focuses on

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 425 Filed 06/01/07 Page 2 of 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

2

The Court previously construed the term “each manifold block having a fluid

passageway with an entrance port and an exit port accessing only a common surface,” see

‘138 Patent, col. 14 ll. 19-21, as “each manifold block having a channel or fluid passageway

and an inlet and outlet on the same surface of the manifold block,” (see Order Construing

Claims, filed September 29, 2006, at 2:16-19.) In its opposition to UCT’s claim construction

brief, Celerity requests, for the first time, that the Court reconsider such construction,

specifically, to eliminate “of the manifold block” from the construction. Because Celerity

has failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 7-9, Celerity’s request for reconsideration is

procedurally improper. In any event, Celerity fails to offer an adequate explanation as to

why its proposed revision is necessary. Accordingly, such request is hereby DENIED.

3

the specification. See Phillips v. AWH Corporation, 415 F. 3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

(holding specification is “usually dispositive” in claim construction analysis). Here, although

at least one preferred embodiment described in the specification of the ‘138 Patent includes

a “manifold block” with an inlet and outlet accessing a “common surface,” see ‘138 Patent

col. 14 ll. 19-21, that is continuous and uninterrupted, see id. Fig. 3 (illustrating inlet and

outlet accessing upper surface of manifold), the specification of the ‘215 Patent, as

discussed above, discloses at least one preferred embodiment that includes a U-shaped

bridging component with an inlet and outlet accessing a “common surface,” see ‘215 Patent

col. 12 ll. 33-35, that is divided, see id. Fig. 17 (illustrating inlet and outlet located on bottom

surface of said U-shaped component).

 Accordingly, the Court finds “common surface” is properly construed as “the same

surface, which surface may be either continuous or divided.”2

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 1, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 425 Filed 06/01/07 Page 3 of 3