Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02755/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02755-1/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

- 1 - 08cv2234

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AREA 55, INC., a California Corporation,

and VINTURI, INC., a California

Corporation,

 Plaintiffs and

 Counterdefendants,

CASE NO. 09-CV-2755-H (NLS)

TENTATIVE CLAIM

CONSTRUCTION ORDER FOR

UNITED STATES PATENT

NUMBER 7,614,614 AND

vs. PATENT NUMBER 7,841,584 

CELERAS LLC, a California Limited

Liability Company; PANDAMERICAN

LLC, a California Limited Liability

Company; FRANMARA INC., a

California Corporation; MARCO POLO

TRADING COMPANY LLC, a

California Limited Liability Company;

and PANDAMERICAN TRADING

GROUP, LTD.,

 Defendants and

 Counterclaimants.

On April 1, 2011, the parties submitted their opening claim construction briefs. (Doc.

Nos. 117, 118.) On April 18, 2011, the parties submitted their responsive claim construction

briefs. (Doc. Nos. 129, 130.) After due consideration of the parties’ briefing, the Court issues

the following tentative claim construction order.

Claim Construction – Legal Standard

The “bedrock principle” of patent law is that the “claims of a patent define the

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 1 of 30
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 - 08cv2234

invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In construing claim

terms, a court must determine the meaning of any disputed words from the perspective of one

of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of filing. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313.

The baseline for the analysis in claim construction is the “ordinary and customary

meaning” of the claim term. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13. However, the “ordinary and

customary meaning” phrase itself has a specialized meaning in patent law. It is the meaning

that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.

Id. at 1313. That person having ordinary skill in the art is deemed “to read the claim term not

only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the

context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. If the meaning of a term is not

readily apparent, the court must then look to other intrinsic evidence to define the term. See

id. at 1314.

A court must read claims “in view of the specification, of which they are a part.”

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The specification

“is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the

single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,

90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). A court may also look beyond the patent and consult the

prosecution history, if in evidence, during claim construction. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. The

patent and its prosecution history “usually provides the technological and temporal context to

enable the court to ascertain the meaning of the claim to one of ordinary skill in the art at the

time of the invention.” V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Group SpA, 401 F.3d 1307, 1310 (Fed.

Cir. 2005). In addition to intrinsic evidence, a court may also consider pertinent extrinsic

evidence. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.

The patent claims should generally be construed to encompass the preferred

embodiments described in the specification, and it is often error to adopt a construction that

does not include them. See On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386

F.3d 1133, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, a court must not import limitations from the

specifications into the claim. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“[A]lthough the specification often

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 2 of 30
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 - 08cv2234

describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against

confining the claims to those embodiments.”); see also Agfa Corp. v. Creo Prods., Inc., 451

F.3d 1366, 1367-77 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1306-

07 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Further, “the fact that the specification describes only a single

embodiment, standing alone, is insufficient to limit otherwise broad claim language.”

Howmedia Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

When a patent contains multiple claims, the doctrine of “claim differentiation” provides

that “each claim in a patent is presumptively different in scope.” RF Del., Inc. v. Pac.

Keystone Techs., Inc., 326 F.3d 1255, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The doctrine is based on a

commonplace notion that patentees use different words or phrases in different claims to

indicate that the claims have different meanings. Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC,

474 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

“[T]he prosecution history can often 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 the prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would

otherwise be.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. The doctrine of prosecution disclaimer is well

established and precludes “patentees from recapturing through claim interpretation specific

meanings disclaimed during prosecution.” Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314,

1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For prosecution history disclaimer to apply there must be “a clear and

unmistakable disavowal of scope during prosecution.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharms.

Inc., 438 F.3d 1123, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2006). There is no such “clear and unmistakable”

disavowal if the statements are subject to “more than one reasonable interpretation.” SanDisk

Corp. v. Memorex Prods., Inc., 415 F.3d 1278, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Omega, 334

F.3d at 1324 (stating that the doctrine does not apply “where the alleged disavowal of claim

scope is ambiguous”). 

The Court reviews each claim and considered each construction in light of the

applicable standards of law. The Court has given the appropriate weight to the intrinsic

evidence and, where appropriate, has declined to import limitations from the specifications.

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 3 of 30
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 - 08cv2234

The Court construes the claim terms in dispute as indicated in the boxes in the charts

below. The Court further incorporates the notes as explanations of its constructions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 6, 2011

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 4 of 30
- 5 - 08cv2234

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART FOR PATENT 7,614,614 (“‘614 P

CLAIM 17

(language for which the parties submitted proposed construction in bold)

A method of aerating wine, the method comprising:disposing a venturi apparatus in vertical alignment with a receptacle such that a liquid flow path of the a

vertically aligned;pouring wine from a bottle, the wine flowing vertically downward due to gravity, through an opening in a texposed to the atmosphere into a reservoir of the venturi apparatus at a beginning of the liquid flow pathabout atmospheric pressure in the reservoir;continuing to dispose the apparatus such that the wine flows vertically downward from the reservoir;decreasing pressure of the wine in a vicinity of an air intake;drawing air through the air intake due to the pressure decrease;

mixing the wine with the air drawn through the air intake to form aerated wine; andcontinuing to dispose the apparatus in vertical alignment with the receptacle such that the aerated wine flow

receptacle.

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 5 of 30
- 6 - 08cv2234

Claim Language Plaintiffs Area 55/Vinturi’s

Construction

Defendant Franmara’sConstruction

Court’s Constructio

“venturi apparatus” tubular structure that is constricted

in the middle and flared on bothends

an apparatus containing aplurality of sections defining aliquid flow path (as definedbelow) as well as an air intake(as defined below)

a fitting or tubular strstructure, that is consat both ends[COMMENT – The plexicographers and despecification. See No

“liquid flow path” Construction Unnecessary 

{a sequential path or passagewaythrough which a fluid is caused toflow}

a plurality of connected sectionsforming a sequential path orpassageway for liquid to flow,said sections consisting of a firstfunnel section, first cylindricalsection, an intermediatepassageway having a ceiling witha diameter greater than the firstcylindrical section locatedimmediately above, a secondcylindrical section, and a secondfunnel section

a plurality of connectsequential path or passaid sections containipassageway having a than the section locat[COMMENT - There disavowal of claim scthe ‘614 patent imporintermediate passagewSee Note 2 below.]

“about atmosphericpressure” 

approximately atmosphericpressure

approximately atmosphericpressure 

approximately atmos[COMMENT - The pconstruction.]

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 6 of 30
Claim Language Plaintiffs Area 55/Vinturi’s

Construction

Defendant Franmara’sConstruction

Court’s Constructio

- 7 - 08cv2234

“decreasing pressure of thewine” 

Construction Unnecessary{reducing the pressure of thewine} 

a reduction in pressure of thewine caused by flowing from thefirst cylindrical section into theintermediate passageway havinga ceiling with a greater diameterthan the first cylindrical sectionimmediately above

reducing the pressure intermediate passagew[COMMENT - The lthe prosecution disclapressure occurs as the the intermediate pass

“air intake” Construction Unnecessary

{an opening through which airenters} 

At least one sidearm passagewayfluidly connected to theintermediate passageway sectionof the liquid flow path.

an opening through w[COMMENT - Defenimport limitations frobelow.]

“pressure decrease” Construction Unnecessary

{reduction in pressure} 

a reduction in pressure of thewine caused by flowing from thefirst cylindrical section into theintermediate passageway havinga ceiling with a greater diameterthan the first cylindrical sectionimmediately above

a reduction in pressurflowing into the interprevious section[COMMENT - The Cconsistent with the prpressure of the wine.” 

NOTE 1: 

Plaintiffs argue that the specification of the ‘614 patent contains an express definition of the term “venturi apparatus

specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise 

“A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and customust clearly express that intent in the written description.” Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 

The ‘614 patent states in its written description: “Venturi-type devices are well-known in the art. Generally, such devices c

and in particular pipe structures, that are constricted in the middle and flared at both ends.” U.S. Patent 7,614,614 col. 1 ll. 18-21 shows a clear intent to define the term “venturi apparatus,” and the Court construes the term to give it the express definition that 

Defendant argues that the term should be given the additional limitations of “containing a plurality of sections defining 

intake.” (Doc. No. 110 at 2-7.) It is unnecessary to add these limitations to this term given that claim 17 already contains the term

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 7 of 30
- 8 - 08cv2234

and these claim terms will be given their own constructions. See Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., 381 F.3d 

terms are presumed to have meaning” and that claims terms should not be rendered “unnecessary and superfluous”).NOTE 2:

Defendant argues that during prosecution, the patentees expressly limited the claim scope of the ‘614 patent and the term “l

art rejection. (Doc. No. 118 at 7-9.) Plaintiffs argue that Defendant is attempting to improperly import limitations from the preferrNo. 117 at 12-14.) 

The doctrine of prosecution disclaimer precludes “patentees from recapturing through claim interpretation specific meani

Omega, 334 F.3d at 1323. “Under the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer, a patentee may limit the meaning of a claim term b

disavowal of scope during prosecution. This may occur, for example, when the patentee explicitly characterizes an aspect of hovercome prior art.” Purdue Pharma, 438 F.3d at 1136. However, the doctrine does not apply “where the alleged disavowal of c

334 F.3d at 1234.

On October 13, 2008, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued an Office Action and rejected 

the ‘614 patent in its entirety as either anticipated or obvious in light of certain prior art, Yamamoto and Kamelmacher. (Doc. NAllen (“Allen Decl.”) Ex. A at 83-90.) In response to this Office Action, the patentees amended the claims in the application and pthe USPTO:

By this amendment, Applicants have more clearly defined the subject matter which they regard as the invention, and 

distinguished the present invention over the cited references. In this regard, independent Claim 1 and new independenremaining claims depend, include an intermediate passageway defining a compartment having a ceiling, floor and mids

ceiling of the intermediate passageway is fluidly coupled to and has a diameter larger than the first cylindrical section. Suc

flow path that operatively causes fluid passing therethrough to experience a decrease in pressure. . . . Such structure is completely lacking in cited references.

(Id. at 103-04 (emphasis in original).) The patentees further stated: “Neither Yamamoto nor Kamelmacher include Applicant’s nov

(Id. at 106.)

The Court concludes that these statements in the prosecution history represent a clear and unmistakable disavowal of cla

examiner due to anticipation and obviousness, the patentees argued that the above structural limitation of an intermediate passagewhat made their invention novel over the prior art. Accordingly, the patentees clearly and unmistakably disavowed any claim intestructural limitation of an intermediate passageway to be part of the claim term “liquid flow path.”

The Court’s conclusion that the term “liquid flow path” requires the limitation of an intermediate passageway is further su

remainder of the prosecution history. The specification explains that the problem with the prior art was that because conventional ve

it reduces the area in which a second fluid could mix with the first fluid and precludes the two fluids from mixing. ‘614 Patent col. that the invention solves this problem by having an intermediate passageway that causes the first fluid to “experience a slighconventional venturi design.” Id. col. 2 ll. 31-34. The second fluid is then introduced at this point of reduced pressure in the intermed

flow dynamics. See id. col. 2 ll. 35-50. In addition, in his reasons for allowance, the USPTO examiner mentioned the importanc

making the invention novel over the prior art. (Doc. Nos. 119-21, Allen Decl. Ex. A at 185.) The examiner stated:

[T]he prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a process for aerating wine or an apparatus for contacting a liquid 

vertically aligned venturi apparatus that is open to atmosphere, such that the liquid, in particular wine, which is poured i

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 8 of 30
- 9 - 08cv2234

device under goes a reduction in pressure during passage through the device, in particular an intermediate passageway of than the upstream portion of the flow path, so as to draw gas, in particular air into the device in the area of reduced pres

(Id.)

The Court also concludes that there is not a meaningful difference between the term “liquid flow path”–used in the claim 

path–used in the prosecution history disclaimer. The patent defines the term “fluid” in the specification as “any type of liquid or g

Halmsderfer, 527 F.3d at 1381 (“patentee may act as its own lexicographer”). Accordingly, the term “liquid” is contained in the d

limitations related to the term “fluid flow path” should also, therefore, be contained in the term “liquid flow path.”

Plaintiffs argue that the disclaimer was not a clear disavowal because the only independent claims in the patent at the tim

that ultimately issued as unasserted claims 1 and 12, not asserted claim 17–the present claim. (Doc. No. 129. at 7-10.) However, “regarding the meaning of a claim term are relevant to the interpretation of that term in every claim of the patent absent a clear ind

Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); accord. ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH v. Canady Tech. LLC

2010). Accordingly, the patentees’ statements regarding the term “fluid flow path” apply equally to claim 17 and the term “liquipart of the application at the time of the statements. See id.

Plaintiffs also argue that the doctrine of claim differentiation prevents the addition of the proposed structural limitations be

described in other claims in addition to the term “fluid/liquid flow path.” (Doc. No. 117 at 15-17.) Plaintiffs argue that this superfluous. (Id.) However, the doctrine of claim differentiation only creates a “presumption that each claim in a patent has a dif

Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Further, this presumption will not overcome a clear prosecu

patentee. See ERBE, 629 F.3d at 1286-87; see also Curtiss-Wright, 438 F.3d at 1381 (“claim differentiation ‘can not broaden cla

Although the Court agrees with Defendant that there was a disavowal of claim scope during the prosecution of the ‘614 pa

as the construction Defendants propose. Defendants proposed construction requires a five section structure consisting of a first funn

an intermediate passageway, a second cylindrical section, and a second funnel section. (Doc. No. 110 at 2-3.) The prosecution h

of these sections, the intermediate passageway. (Doc. Nos. 119-21, Allen Decl. Ex. A at 103.) The disclaimer does not even men

second funnel sections. (See id.) Further, although the disclaimer does mention cylindrical sections, it only does so only in passin

passageway. (See id.) That statement is at best ambiguous about the importance of the cylindrical sections and does not constitute 

of claim scope. See Purdue Pharma, 438 F.3d at 1136; Omega, 334 F.3d at 1323-24. 

The five section structure that Defendant argues for is only contained in the specification as a preferred embodiment of t

ll. 12-57. The specification even expressly uses the term preferred embodiment. Id. at col. 2 ll. 17 (“According to the preferred emimport limitations from the specification, in particular preferred embodiments, into the claims. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. T

embodiment described in the specification does not change the Court’s analysis because “‘even where a patent describes only a sin

read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using words or expressions of manife

Biosciences Corp v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, 381 F.3d at 1117). Here, t

claim scope to Defendant’s five section structure. To the contrary, the specification states that it is a preferred embodiment and l

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 9 of 30
- 10 - 08cv2234

Additional modifications and improvements of the present invention may also be apparent to those of ordinary skill in tcombination of parts and steps described and illustrated herein is intended to represent only certain embodiments of the p

intended to serve as limitations of alternative devices and methods within the spirit and scope of the invention.

‘614 Patent col. 6 ll. 1-7. Accordingly, the Court declines to adopt a construction of the term “liquid flow path” that requires 

limitations other than the structural limitation of an intermediate passageway as disclaimed by the patentees during the prosecutioNOTE 3: 

The prosecution disclaimer previously mentioned in the last note clearly and unmistakably states that the reduction in pr

of the intermediate passageway. (Doc. Nos. 119-21, Allen Decl. Ex. A at 103.) This is also supported by the specification, whicthe problems of the prior art by having an intermediate passageway that causes the first fluid to “experience a slight decrease in pventuri design.” ‘614 Patent, col. 2 ll. 31-34. In addition, the USPTO examiner in his reasons for allowance stated that the reduc

the intermediate passageway. (Doc. Nos. 119-21, Allen Decl. Ex. A at 185.) Accordingly, the Court construes this claim to requoccurs when the first fluid, here wine, enters the intermediate passageway. NOTE 4: 

Defendant’s proposed construction seeks to import a limitation from the specification into the claim. The limitation of “at l

connected to the intermediate passageway” is only found in the specification in describing a preferred embodiment of the inventi

col. 4 ll. 20-36. In construing the claims, the Court will not import limitations from preferred embodiments found in the specificati

F.3d at 1323; see also Martek, 579 F.3d at 1381. Accordingly, the Court declines to adopt Defendant’s proposed construction. 

However, the Court disagrees with Plaintiffs’ contention that the term “air intake” does not require any construction. (Doc

is not a commonly understood phrase with a widely accepted meaning. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Accordingly, the Court ad

construction.

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 10 of 30
- 11 - 08cv2234

CLAIM 18

(language for which the parties submitted proposed construction in bold)

The method of claim 17 wherein decreasing the pressure of the wine occurs vertically above the air inta

Claim Language Plaintiffs Area 55/Vinturi’s

Construction

Defendant Franmara’sConstruction

Court’s Construct

“decreasing pressure of thewine” 

Construction Unnecessary{reducing the pressure of thewine} 

a reduction in pressure of the winecaused by flowing from the firstcylindrical section into theintermediate passageway having aceiling with a greater diameterthan the first cylindrical sectionimmediately above

reducing the pressuintermediate passag[COMMENT - The consistent with its c‘614 patent. See N

“air intake” Construction Unnecessary

{an opening through which airenters} 

At least one sidearm passagewayfluidly connected to theintermediate passageway sectionof the liquid flow path.

an opening through [COMMENT - The consistent with its c‘614 patent. See N

NOTE 5: 

“[C]laim terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Further, the parties a

given the same previous construction. (Doc. No. 110.)

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 11 of 30
- 12 - 08cv2234

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART FOR PATENT 7,841,584 (“‘584 P

CLAIM 1

(language for which the parties submitted proposed construction in bold)

An apparatus configured to aerate wine, the apparatus comprising:a body providing a fluid flow path through the body such that wine can pass downward through the body;the fluid flow path being defined by: a fluid-receiving portion configured to be open to and in fluid commatmosphere to receive the wine as the wine is poured, the fluid-receiving portion defining at least a first cra reduced area portion disposed downstream from and in fluid communication with the fluid-receiving poportion defining a second cross-sectional area that is smaller than the first cross-sectional area of the fluid-ran air inlet extending between the fluid flow path and a side of the body, fluidly coupling the atmosphere w

an increased-area portion disposed in a vicinity of the air inlet, the increased-area portion defining a thi

greater than the second cross-sectional area.

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 12 of 30
- 13 - 08cv2234

Claim Language Plaintiffs Area 55/Vinturi’s

Construction

Defendant Franmara’sConstruction

Court’s Construct

“fluid flow path” Construction Unnecessary 

{a sequential path or passagewaythrough which a fluid is caused toflow} 

a plurality of connected sectionsforming a sequential path orpassageway for fluid to flow, saidsections consisting of a firstfunnel section, first cylindricalsection, an intermediatepassageway, a second cylindricalsection, and a second funnel

sectionFirst funnel section: a funnel-typeopening at the beginning of thefluid flow path.First cylindrical section: agenerally straight, cylindricalpassageway.Intermediate passageway: acompartment having a ceiling,floor and midsection, saidcompartment being fluidly coupledto the first cylindrical section, thediameter of said compartmentbeing substantially larger than thediameter than the first cylindricalsection.Second cylindrical section: asecond generally straight

a plurality of connesequential path or psaid sections contapassageway having than the section loc[COMMENT - The consistent with ClaNote 6 below.]

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 13 of 30
Claim Language Plaintiffs Area 55/Vinturi’s

Construction

Defendant Franmara’sConstruction

Court’s Construct

- 14 - 08cv2234

cylindrical passageway.Second funnel section: a secondfunnel-type opening at the end ofthe fluid flow path allowing thefluid to exit the apparatus.

“fluid receiving portion” Construction Unnecessary 

{a portion of the fluid flow paththat receives fluid} 

First funnel section: a funnel-typeopening at the beginning of thefluid flow path.

a portion of the flu[COMMENT - Defimport limitations fbelow.]

“reduced area portion” Construction Unnecessary 

{a second cross-sectional area thatis smaller than the firstcross-sectional area of thefluid-receiving portion} 

First cylindrical section: agenerally straight, cylindricalpassageway.

a second cross-sectfirst cross-sectionaportion[COMMENT - Defimport limitations fbelow.]

“air inlet” Construction Unnecessary

{an opening through which airenters} 

a side-arm passageway. an opening through 

[COMMENT - Defimport limitations fbelow.]

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 14 of 30
Claim Language Plaintiffs Area 55/Vinturi’s

Construction

Defendant Franmara’sConstruction

Court’s Construct

- 15 - 08cv2234

“increased area portion” Construction Unnecessary 

{a third cross-sectional area that isgreater than the secondcross-sectional area} 

Intermediate passageway: acompartment having a ceiling,floor and midsection, saidcompartment being fluidly coupledto the first cylindrical section, thediameter of said compartmentbeing substantially larger than thediameter than the first cylindricalsection.

an intermediate pasdiameter greater thimmediately above[COMMENT - The consistent with the specification, and tNote 8 below.]

NOTE 6: 

As stated previously, during the prosecution history of the ‘614 patent’s application, there was a clear and unmistakable 

patentees with respect to the claim term “fluid flow path.” (Doc. Nos. 119-21, Allen Decl. Ex. A at 103-07.) Plaintiffs argue thaapply to the Court’s construction of the ‘584 patent because its claims were not part of the application at the time the disclaimer w

“‘[P]rosecution disclaimer may arise from disavowals made during the prosecution of ancestor patent applications.’” Omeg

498 F.3d at 1314. “When multiple patents derive from the same initial application, the prosecution history regarding a claim limapplies with equal force to subsequently issued patents that contain the same claim limitation.” Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 

The ‘584 patent is a continuation of the application that issued as the ‘614 patent, (Doc. No. 117 at 4), and the ‘584 patent contains flow path” that is contained in the ‘614 patent. Compare ‘584 Patent col. 6 ll. 22 with ‘614 Patent col. 6. ll. 41. In addition, becau

nearly identical to the ‘614 patent’s specification, the Court’s construction of the term “fluid flow path” is also supported by the ‘

Patent col. 1 ll. 35-65, col. 2 ll. 25-48. Accordingly, the Court applies the prosecution disclaimer from the ‘614 patent’s application See Elkay, 192 F.3d at 980. 

NOTE 7: 

Defendant’s proposed constructions of the terms “fluid-receiving portion,” “reduced-area portion,” and “air inlet” s

specification into the claim. The limitations of a “first funnel section,” a “first cylindrical section,” and a “side-arm passageway” in describing a preferred embodiment of the invention. See ‘584 Patent col. 2 ll. 10-48, col. 3 ll. 49-col. 5 ll. 28. In construing t

limitations from preferred embodiments found in the specification into the claims. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323; see also Martek, 

Court declines to adopt Defendant’s proposed constructions. 

However, the Court disagrees with Plaintiffs’ contention that these terms do not require any construction. (Doc. No. 110 a

portion,” “reduced-area portion,” and “air inlet” are not commonly understood phrases with widely accepted meanings. See Phill

the Court adopts Plaintiff’s alternative proposed constructions.

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 15 of 30
- 16 - 08cv2234

NOTE 8: 

The prosecution disclaimer made by the patentees during the prosecution of the ‘614 patent’s application clearly require

“intermediate passageway.” (Doc. Nos. 119-21, Allen Decl. Ex. A at 103-07.) This conclusion is also supported by the language in 

See ‘584 Patent col. 1 ll. 35-65, col. 2 ll. 25-48. In addition, the language of claim 1 and the specification show that this “inter

“increased-area portion” of claim 1. Compare id. col. 2 ll. 26-29 (“intermediate cylindrical passageway that is configured and dime

the first cylindrical section”); id. col. 2 ll. 45-46 (“sidearm passageways introducing one or more additional fluids will interconnect 

with id. col. 6 ll. 37-40 (“an increased-area portion disposed in a vicinity of the air inlet, the increased-area portion defining a thir

than the second cross-sectional area”).

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 16 of 30
- 17 - 08cv2234

CLAIM 3

(language for which the parties submitted proposed construction in bold)

The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the increased-area portion is configured and disposed such that air is atmosphere through the air inlet into the fluid flow path as the wine passes through the fluid flow path.

Claim Language Plaintiffs Area 55/Vinturi’s

Construction

Defendant Franmara’sConstruction

Court’s Construct

“increased area portion” Construction Unnecessary 

{a third cross-sectional area that isgreater than the secondcross-sectional area}

Intermediate passageway: acompartment having a ceiling,floor and midsection, saidcompartment being fluidly coupledto the first cylindrical section, thediameter of said compartmentbeing substantially larger than thediameter than the first cylindricalsection.

an intermediate pasdiameter greater thimmediately above[COMMENT - The consistent with its cpatent. See Note 5 

“configured and disposedsuch that air is drawn fromthe atmosphere “

Construction Unnecessary {the arrangement of theincreased-area portion causes air tobe drawn in from the atmosphere}

the flow of liquid from the firstcylindrical section into theintermediate passageway results ina pressure differential (definedbelow). As a result of saidpressure differential, air is drawnfrom the atmosphere into theintermediate chamber

the arrangement of causes air to be draa reduction in pressintermediate passagdiameter greater thimmediately above[COMMENT - The disclaimer and the construction. See N

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 17 of 30
Claim Language Plaintiffs Area 55/Vinturi’s

Construction

Defendant Franmara’sConstruction

Court’s Construct

- 18 - 08cv2234

“fluid flow path” Construction Unnecessary 

{a sequential path or passagewaythrough which a fluid is caused toflow} 

a plurality of connected sectionsforming a sequential path orpassageway for fluid to flow, saidsections consisting of a firstfunnel section, first cylindricalsection, an intermediatepassageway, a second cylindricalsection, and a second funnelsection.First funnel section: a funnel-typeopening at the beginning of thefluid flow path.First cylindrical section: a

generally straight, cylindricalpassageway.Intermediate passageway: acompartment having a ceiling,floor and midsection, saidcompartment being fluidly coupledto the first cylindrical section, thediameter of said compartmentbeing substantially larger than thediameter than the first cylindricalsection.Second cylindrical section: asecond generally straight

a plurality of connesequential path or psaid sections contapassageway having than the section loc[COMMENT - The consistent with ClaNote 6 above.]

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 18 of 30
Claim Language Plaintiffs Area 55/Vinturi’s

Construction

Defendant Franmara’sConstruction

Court’s Construct

- 19 - 08cv2234

cylindrical passageway.Second funnel section: a secondfunnel-type opening at the end ofthe fluid flow path allowing thefluid to exit the apparatus.

NOTE 9: 

The prosecution disclaimer made by the patentees during the prosecution of the ‘614 patent’s application states that the stru

causes the first fluid, here wine, “to experience a decrease in pressure.” (Doc. Nos. 119-21, Allen Decl. Ex. A at 103.) The speexplains that this decreased pressure in the first fluid creates a vacuum that draws in the second fluid, here air. See ‘584 Patent co

ll. 20-48.

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 19 of 30
- 20 - 08cv2234

CLAIM 11

(language for which the parties submitted proposed construction in bold)

A method of aerating wine, the method comprising:disposing a venturi apparatus higher than and in relation to a wine receptacle such that a fluid flow path 

disposed to direct wine exiting from the venturi apparatus into the receptacle;

pouring wine from a bottle, the wine flowing downward due to gravity, through an opening provided by the to the atmosphere into a wine-receiving portion of the flow path, the wine being subject to atmospheric prportion;continuing to dispose the apparatus such that wine flows downward from the wine-receiving portion along 

producing a pressure differential between the fluid flow path and the atmosphere in a vicinity of an air int

drawing air through the air intake due to the pressure differential;mixing the wine with the air drawn through the air intake to form aerated wine;and continuing to dispose the apparatus higher than and in relation to the receptacle such that the aerated w

into the receptacle.

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 20 of 30
- 21 - 08cv2234

Claim Language Plaintiffs Area 55/Vinturi’s

Construction

Defendant Franmara’sConstruction

Court’s Construct

“venturi apparatus” tubular structure that is constricted

in the middle and flared on bothends

an apparatus containing a pluralityof sections defining a liquid flowpath (as defined below) as well asan air inlet (as defined below)

a fitting or tubular structure, that is coat both ends[COMMENT – Thlexicographers and specification. See also Note 1 above.]

“fluid flow path” Construction Unnecessary 

{a sequential path or passagewaythrough which a fluid is caused toflow} 

a plurality of connected sectionsforming a sequential path orpassageway for fluid to flow, saidsections consisting of a firstfunnel section, first cylindricalsection, an intermediatepassageway, a second cylindricalsection, and a second funnelsection.First funnel section: a funnel-typeopening at the beginning of thefluid flow path.First cylindrical section: agenerally straight, cylindricalpassageway.

a plurality of connesequential path or psaid sections contapassageway having than the section loc[COMMENT - The consistent with ClaNote 6 above.]

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 21 of 30
Claim Language Plaintiffs Area 55/Vinturi’s

Construction

Defendant Franmara’sConstruction

Court’s Construct

- 22 - 08cv2234

Intermediate passageway: acompartment having a ceiling,floor and midsection, saidcompartment being fluidly coupledto the first cylindrical section, thediameter of said compartmentbeing substantially larger than thediameter than the first cylindricalsection.Second cylindrical section: asecond generally straightcylindrical passageway.Second funnel section: a secondfunnel-type opening at the end ofthe fluid flow path allowing thefluid to exit the apparatus.

“wine-receiving portion” Construction Unnecessary 

{a portion of the fluid flow paththat receives wine} 

First funnel section: a funnel-typeopening at the beginning of thefluid flow path.

a portion of the flu[COMMENT- Defimport limitations f10 below.]

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 22 of 30
Claim Language Plaintiffs Area 55/Vinturi’s

Construction

Defendant Franmara’sConstruction

Court’s Construct

- 23 - 08cv2234

“pressure differential” Construction Unnecessary 

{a difference in pressure} 

a reduction in pressure of theliquid relative to the atmosphere asthe liquid flows from the firstcylindrical section (definedabove) into the intermediatepassageway (defined above)caused by the fact that theintermediate passageway has asubstantially larger diameter thanthe diameter of the first cylindricalsection.

a difference in prespressure of the winpassageway having than the section loc[COMMENT - The the prosecution disconstruction. See N

NOTE 10: 

Defendant’s proposed construction seeks to import a limitation from the specification into the claim. The limitation of a 

in the specification in describing a preferred embodiment of the invention. See ‘584 Patent col. 2 ll. 17-22, col. 3 ll. 64-col. 4 ll. 4

will not import limitations from preferred embodiments found in the specification into the claims. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323

Accordingly, the Court declines to adopt Defendant’s proposed construction. 

However, the Court disagrees with Plaintiffs’ contention that the term “wine-receiving portion” does not require any cons

term “wine-receiving portion” is not a commonly understood phrase with a widely accepted meaning. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1

Plaintiff’s alternative proposed construction.NOTE 11: 

The prosecution disclaimer made by the patentees during the prosecution of the ‘614 patent’s application states that the stru

causes the first fluid, here wine, “to experience a decrease in pressure.” (Doc. Nos. 119-21, Allen Decl. Ex. A at 103.) The speexplains that this decreased pressure in the first fluid causes the pressure differential between it and the second fluid. See ‘584 Pa

col. 4 ll. 20-48.

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 23 of 30
- 24 - 08cv2234

CLAIM 12

(language for which the parties submitted proposed construction in bold)

An apparatus for facilitating the mixture of a liquid and a gas, the apparatus comprising:a fluid receiving section configured to be open to and in fluid communication with the atmosphere to receliquid being poured, the fluid receiving section defining a narrowing passageway;an intermediate passageway fluidly coupled with the fluid receiving section to receive the liquid from the an exit passageway fluidly coupled to the intermediate passageway, the intermediate passageway being locreceiving section and the exit passageway;and at least one side passageway fluidly coupled to the intermediate passageway and configured to allow tintermediate passageway to mix with the liquid;wherein: the fluid receiving section, the intermediate passageway and the exit passageway are disposed to d

the poured liquid, and the fluid flow path between the fluid receiving section and the exit passageway caustherethrough to experience a decreased pressure to draw the gas through the at least one side passageway 

therethrough at the decreased pressure.

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 24 of 30
- 25 - 08cv2234

Claim Language Plaintiffs Area 55/Vinturi’s

Construction

Defendant Franmara’sConstruction

Court’s Construct

“a fluid receiving section” Construction Unnecessary 

{a portion of the fluid flow paththat receives fluid} 

First funnel section: a funnel-typeopening at the beginning of thefluid flow path.

a portion of the flu[COMMENT - The “fluid-receiving secconstruction as the found in claim 1 of 

“defining a narrowpassageway”

Construction Unnecessary {defining a passageway thatnarrows}

the first cylindrical section isnarrower in diameter than theopening at the beginning of thefirst funnel section

defining a passagew[COMMENT- Defimport limitations f12 below.]

“intermediate passageway” Construction Unnecessary 

{a passageway between the fluidreceiving section and the exitpassageway}

a compartment having a ceiling,floor and midsection, saidcompartment being fluidly coupledto the first cylindrical section, thediameter of said compartmentbeing substantially larger than thediameter than the first cylindricalsection

an intermediate pasdiameter greater thimmediately above[COMMENT - The consistent with the passageway” that hconstructions of the “increased-area porpatent. See Note 5 

“exit passageway” Construction Unnecessary 

{passageway through which thefluid exits the apparatus}

a portion of the fluid flow pathconsisting, sequentially of the“second cylindrical section” andthe “second funnel section,” bothof which are defined above.

passageway througapparatus[COMMENT- Defimport limitations f12 below.]

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 25 of 30
Claim Language Plaintiffs Area 55/Vinturi’s

Construction

Defendant Franmara’sConstruction

Court’s Construct

- 26 - 08cv2234

“side passageway” Construction Unnecessary At least one sidearm passageway

fluidly connected to theintermediate passageway sectionof the liquid flow path.

side passageway[COMMENT- Defimport limitations f12 below.]

“fluid flow path” Construction Unnecessary 

{a sequential path or passagewaythrough which a fluid is caused toflow} 

a plurality of connected sectionsforming a sequential path orpassageway for fluid to flow, saidsections consisting of a firstfunnel section, first cylindricalsection, an intermediatepassageway, a second cylindricalsection, and a second funnelsection.First funnel section: a funnel-typeopening at the beginning of thefluid flow path.First cylindrical section: agenerally straight, cylindricalpassageway.

a plurality of connesequential path or psaid sections contapassageway having than the section loc[COMMENT - The consistent with ClaNote 6 above.]

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 26 of 30
Claim Language Plaintiffs Area 55/Vinturi’s

Construction

Defendant Franmara’sConstruction

Court’s Construct

- 27 - 08cv2234

Intermediate passageway: acompartment having a ceiling,floor and midsection, saidcompartment being fluidly coupledto the first cylindrical section, thediameter of said compartmentbeing substantially larger than thediameter than the first cylindricalsection.Second cylindrical section: asecond generally straightcylindrical passageway.Second funnel section: a secondfunnel-type opening at the end ofthe fluid flow path allowing thefluid to exit the apparatus.

“decreased pressure” Construction Unnecessary

{reduced pressure}

a reduction in pressure of theliquid relative to the atmosphere asthe liquid flows from the firstcylindrical section (definedabove) into the intermediatepassageway (defined above)caused by the fact that theintermediate passageway has asubstantially larger diameter thanthe diameter of the first cylindricalsection

a reduction in pressflowing into the intprevious section[COMMENT - The consistent with its cdecrease” found in Note 6 above.]

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 27 of 30
- 28 - 08cv2234

NOTE 12: 

Defendant’s proposed constructions seek to import limitations from the specification into the claim. The limitations of a “fir

section,” a “second cylindrical section,” a “second funnel section,” and a “sidearm passage” can only be found in the specification in 

of the invention. See ‘584 Patent col. 2 ll. 10-55, col. 3 ll. 49-col. 5 ll. 18. In construing the claims, the Court will not import limi

found in the specification into the claims. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323; see also Martek, 579 F.3d at 1381. Accordingly, the C

proposed constructions. 

However, the Court disagrees with Plaintiffs’ contention that the term “exit passageway” does not require any construction

“exit passageway” is a not commonly understood phrase with a widely accepted meaning. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Acco

alternative proposed constructions.

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 28 of 30
- 29 - 08cv2234

CLAIM 16

(language for which the parties submitted proposed construction in bold)

The apparatus of claim 15 wherein an aperture between the fluid receiving section and the intermediate pasdiameter of the intermediate passageway is greater than a diameter of the aperture.

Claim Language Plaintiffs Area 55/Vinturi’s

Construction

Defendant Franmara’sConstruction

Court’s Construct

“a diameter of theintermediate passageway isgreater than a diameter ofthe aperture”

Construction Unnecessary the diameter of the intermediate

passageway is substantially greaterthan the diameter of the firstcylindrical section

the diameter of the greater than the dia[COMMENT - Defimport limitations f

13 below.]

NOTE 13: 

Defendant’s proposed construction seeks to import limitations from the specification into the claim. The limitation of the d

than the aperture and the limitation of a “first cylindrical section” are only found in the specification in describing a preferred emb

Patent col. 2 ll. 22-24, col. 4 ll. 5-19, col. 4 ll. 25. In construing the claims, the Court will not import limitations from preferred em

into the claims. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323; see also Martek, 579 F.3d at 1381. Accordingly, the Court declines to adopt Def

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 29 of 30
- 30 - 08cv2234

CLAIM 17

(language for which the parties submitted proposed construction in bold)

The apparatus of claim 12 further comprising a first cylindrical section fluidly coupling the fluid receivinintermediate passageway.

Claim Language Plaintiffs Area 55/Vinturi’s

Construction

Defendant Franmara’sConstruction

Court’s Constructi

“first cylindrical section” Construction Unnecessary a generally straight, cylindrical

passageway

first cylindrical sect[COMMENT - The uses commonly undaccepted meanings, necessary. See Phil

“fluid receiving section” Construction Unnecessary 

{a portion of the fluid flow paththat receives fluid} 

First funnel section: afunnel-type opening at thebeginning of the fluid flow path.

a portion of the fluid [COMMENT - The consistent with its c‘584 patent. See no

“intermediate passageway” Construction Unnecessary 

{a passageway between the fluidreceiving section and the exitpassageway}

a compartment having a ceiling,floor and midsection, saidcompartment being fluidlycoupled to the first cylindricalsection, the diameter of saidcompartment being substantiallylarger than the diameter than thefirst cylindrical section

an intermediate passdiameter greater thaabove[COMMENT - The consistent with its c‘584 patent. See no

Case 3:09-cv-02755-H-NLS Document 131 Filed 05/06/11 Page 30 of 30