Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01199/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01199-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

SCOTT CLARE, NEIL LONG, INNOVATIVE TRUCK

STORAGE, INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

CHRYSLER GROUP LLC,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2015-1199

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Michigan in No. 2:13-cv-11225-NGEDRG, Judge Nancy G. Edmunds.

______________________

Decided: March 31, 2016

______________________

JONATHAN TAD SUDER, Friedman, Suder & Cooke, 

Fort Worth, TX, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also 

represented by JAYE QUADROZZI, RODGER D. YOUNG,

Young & Associates, Farmington Hills, MI. 

FRANK C. CIMINO, JR., Venable LLP, Washington, DC,

argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by 

JONATHAN L. FALKLER, LESLIE A. LEE, MEGAN S.

WOODWORTH.

______________________

Case: 15-1199 Document: 89-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/31/2016
2 CLARE v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC

Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges.

MOORE, Circuit Judge.

Scott Clare, Neil Long, and Innovative Truck Storage, 

Inc. (collectively, Clare), accused Chrysler Group LLC of 

infringing claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,499,795 and 

7,104,583 by importing, making, using, selling, and 

offering to sell Dodge Ram pickup trucks equipped with 

the Dodge RamBox Cargo Maintenance System. We 

affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment of 

non-infringement.

BACKGROUND

The ’795 and ’583 patents are directed to a hidden 

storage compartment in the side of the bed of a pickup 

truck. The specifications of the patents, which are identical in relevant part, describe conventional methods for 

altering the bed of a pickup truck to add storage space, 

but these methods “alter the bed’s external appearance” 

to give the pickup truck the “appearance of a utility bed” 

with visible storage panels, handles, and locks. ’795 

patent col. 1 ll. 20–40. The resulting modifications make 

the pickup truck storage “an attraction for theft.” Id. 

The ’795 and ’583 patents improve on the prior art by 

adding storage to the bed of a pickup truck “without 

altering the external appearance of the bed and without 

significant reduction in the carrying capacity” of the bed. 

Id. col. 1 ll. 41–44. In order to add storage space without 

significantly reducing storage capacity, the storage area is 

placed in the side of the bed “adjacent [to] the wheel well 

area, and along the length of the bed.” Id. col. 1 ll. 45–50. 

The external side panel of the truck is used to access the 

storage area. Id. The only visible modifications to the 

external side panel are two vertical lines where the side 

panel is cut. Id. col. 4 ll. 41–46. The hinge is placed outof-sight on the inside of the side panel, and the latch and 

Case: 15-1199 Document: 89-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/31/2016
CLARE v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC 3

lock are placed out-of-sight on the interior side of the bed. 

Id. col. 4 ll. 46–49, col. 5 ll. 7–9. After the modifications 

are made, “one would not readily recognize the modification to the bed, and therefore those with intent to steal 

tools, etc. would not recognize the hidden storage arrangement.” Id. col. 4 ll. 49–52.

At issue on appeal are claim limitations characterized 

by the district court and the parties as the “external 

appearance limitations.” See, e.g., id. col. 8 ll. 39–41 (“the 

hinged portion is constructed such that the truck has an 

external appearance of a conventional pickup truck”); ’583 

patent col. 6. ll. 6–8 (“the bed being constructed such that 

the pickup has substantially the external appearance of a 

pickup without the built-in storage”). The district court 

gave these limitations the same construction, as “the 

hinged portion is constructed such that the storage box is 

not obvious from the outward appearance of the pickup.” 

Clare v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, No. 13-11225, 2014 WL 

2514563, at *11 (E.D. Mich. June 4, 2014).

Chrysler moved for summary judgment of noninfringement of the claims containing the external appearance limitations: claims 21 and 46 of the ’795 patent, 

and claims 33, 34, 37, 41, 43, 44, 46-48, 53, 56, and 57 of 

the ’583 patent.1 The district court granted Chrysler’s 

motion, holding that no reasonable juror could find that 

the RamBox, with its numerous and obvious visible 

distinctions of the external hinged panel, is not obvious 

from the outward appearance of the pickup truck. Clare 

v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, No. 13-11225, 2014 WL 6886292, at 

*4 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 4, 2014) (“The metallic lock of the 

 

1 The district court granted Chrysler’s motion for 

summary judgment of invalidity on the remaining asserted claims, holding that those claims failed the written 

description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The invalidated claims are not on appeal.

Case: 15-1199 Document: 89-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/31/2016
4 CLARE v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC

RamBox is plainly visible. It is positioned in an open 

portion at the center of the RamBox storage lid and the 

metallic color of the lock contrasts with the surrounding 

color of the pickup’s side panel. The seams created between the storage lid and the side panel are also visible. 

They are located in an outward-facing area above waist 

height. Finally, the top rail of the RamBox is stamped 

‘RAMBOX’ in large lettering.”). The district court also 

held that no reasonable jury could find that the RamBox 

satisfied the external appearance limitations under the 

doctrine of equivalents.2 

Clare appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(1).

DISCUSSION

Determining literal infringement is a two-step process: the “proper construction of the asserted claim and a 

determination whether the claim as properly construed 

reads on the accused product or method.” Georgia-Pac.

Corp. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 195 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 

1999). “[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 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., ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015) (italics omitted). Because the only claim construction evidence at 

issue on appeal and presented to the district court is

 

2 On appeal, Clare does not dispute the district 

court’s findings on the doctrine of equivalents. Clare only 

asks that we remand the doctrine of equivalents issue to 

the district court if we find it was based on a flawed claim 

construction of the external appearance limitations. 

Case: 15-1199 Document: 89-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/31/2016
CLARE v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC 5

intrinsic, our review is de novo. See Pacing Techs., LLC v. 

Garmin Int’l, Inc., 778 F.3d 1021, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

We review the grant of summary judgment of noninfringement under the law of the relevant regional 

circuit. The Sixth Circuit reviews grants of summary 

judgment de novo. Moore v. Holbrook, 2 F.3d 697, 698 

(6th Cir. 1993). Summary judgment is appropriate if “the 

movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any 

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “The evidence of the 

nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences 

are to be drawn in [its] favor.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 

Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

I. Claim Construction

The district court construed the external appearance 

limitations to mean “the hinged portion is constructed 

such that the storage box is not obvious from the outward 

appearance of the pickup.” Clare, 2014 WL 2514563, at 

*11. Clare argues that the district court erred in construing the limitations and erred in giving the different 

limitations the same construction. Clare asserts that the 

district court’s construction improperly removes the 

“conventional pickup truck” frame-of-reference from the 

claims, improperly imports the theft-deterrent purpose of 

the invention into the claims, and conflicts with the 

patentee’s express definition of the limitations in the 

prosecution history. Clare asks that we vacate the district court’s construction, and hold that the external 

appearance limitations do not need a construction because 

the limitations are readily apparent to a lay person. We 

conclude that the district court properly construed these 

limitations.

The external appearance limitations appear in asserted dependent claims 21 and 46 of the ’795 patent, and in 

independent claims 1, 22, and 45 of the ’583 patent, from 

which the asserted claims of that patent depend. Claim 

Case: 15-1199 Document: 89-2 Page: 5 Filed: 03/31/2016
6 CLARE v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC

46 of the ’795 patent and claim 1 of the ’583 patent are

representative of the asserted claims for the purpose of 

the disputes on appeal. Claim 46 of the ’795 patent 

requires, in relevant part, 

A pickup truck having: a cab; a bed with two side 

panels connected to the cab and mounted on a 

frame . . . the improvement comprising: a storage 

compartment mounted within the bed and adjacent to one of the wheel wells; and at least a portion of one of the side panels is hinged to provide 

access to at least a portion of the storage compartment wherein the side panels terminate adjacent to the frame . . . wherein the hinged portion is 

constructed such that the truck has an external 

appearance of a conventional pickup truck.

’795 patent col. 8 ll. 10–20, col. 8 ll. 39–41 (emphasis 

added). Claim 1 the ’583 patent requires, in relevant 

part, 

A pickup truck comprising . . . a bed; the bed comprising: two opposed side panels which are contoured and generally in line with the contoured 

sides of the forward area of the pickup truck . . . a 

hinged panel providing access to the storage compartment, the bed being constructed such that the 

pickup has substantially the external appearance 

of a pickup without the built-in storage.

’583 patent col. 5 l. 55–col. 6 l. 8 (emphasis added).

The language of the claims determines what the patentee regards as the invention and defines what the 

patentee is entitled to exclude. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 

415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Both sets 

of claims require that the inventive modifications to a 

conventional pickup truck are not obvious from the outward appearance of the pickup truck. Claim 46 of the 

’795 patent, for example, requires that the side panel of 

Case: 15-1199 Document: 89-2 Page: 6 Filed: 03/31/2016
CLARE v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC 7

the bed be modified with a hinged portion that provides 

access to a storage compartment, in a way that does not 

alter the external appearance of the truck. Similarly, 

claim 1 of the ’583 patent requires that the bed of the 

pickup truck, which comprises a hinged panel that provides access to the storage compartment, be modified in a 

way that does not substantially alter the external appearance of the truck.

The specifications likewise support this construction 

of the external appearance limitations. See ’795 patent, 

Abstract (“A pickup truck conversion . . . involves a storage/utility system in any fleet side pickup truck bed 

without substantially altering the bed’s external appearance. . . . Since the storage system does not substantially 

alter the truck’s external appearance, it reduces the 

attraction for theft.”). Adding external storage compartments to a pickup truck was not a new idea at the time of 

the invention, as the specifications reference two such 

pre-existing systems. Id. col. 1 ll. 18–30. The “need [that] 

has been filled” by the invention is for external storage 

that is not obviously apparent as storage so that it does 

attract theft. Id. col. 1 ll. 31–33 (“While these prior storage/utility arrangements have been satisfactory for their 

intended purpose, such are an attraction for theft . . . .”), 

col. 1 ll. 34–39 (“Thus, there has been a need for a storage/utility system for pickup truck beds which does not 

alter the bed’s external appearance . . . thereby reducing 

the tool theft problem”), col. 1 ll. 41–45 (“This need has 

been filled by the present invention which involves the 

conversion of a conventional pickup truck bed into a 

storage/utility bed without altering the external appearance of the bed . . . .”), col. 1 ll. 50–54 (“Thus, the pickup 

can be used for pleasure or work without the appearance 

of its storage/utility capability, and can be parked in areas 

where theft would likely occur from conventional tool 

boxes or utility.”), col. 2 ll. 5–8 (“Another object of the 

invention is to reduce theft potential from a storage/utility 

Case: 15-1199 Document: 89-2 Page: 7 Filed: 03/31/2016
8 CLARE v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC

bed of pickup trucks, etc. by providing hidden storage 

utility areas in the bed without altering the external 

appearance of the bed.”).

The specifications describe how the invention accomplishes the “conversion of a conventional pickup truck bed 

to a storage/utility bed without altering the external 

appearance of the bed” to “reduce[] the theft potential 

from storage/utility beds by eliminating the appearance of 

such beds.” Id. col. 3 l. 66–col. 4 l. 6. The storage is added 

to a conventional pickup truck by cutting the external 

side panel of the truck bed vertically in two places, cutting along the upper length on the inner surface of the 

side panel, and disconnecting the lower length from the 

frame. Id. col. 4 ll. 24–34. The side panel is then reattached to the truck bed by attaching an internal hinge to 

the side panel along the upper length, installing an internal latch along the lower length, and painting the cut 

areas and the internal area to correspond to the color of 

the bed. Id. col. 4 ll. 34–41. “Upon completion of the 

conversion, from a side view, the only difference between 

the converted bed and a nonconverted bed are two vertical 

lines or small spaces, one just back of the front of the bed 

and one just forward of the taillight section of the bed, 

where the side panel is cut, as illustrated in FIG. 1.” Id.

col. 4 ll. 41–46. 

The specifications contain a primary embodiment,3 illustrated by the figures in the patent, that closely tracks 

 

3 The specifications also provide an example where 

the side panel is cut “along a desired lower portion . . . to 

eliminate the need for raising the entire side panel.” ’795 

patent col. 5 ll. 44–50. This horizontal cut, marked as 

number 34 in figure 1, appears as an extension of the 

horizontal line in the cab of the truck and is therefore 

consistent with the specifications’ requirement that the 

Case: 15-1199 Document: 89-2 Page: 8 Filed: 03/31/2016
CLARE v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC 9

the description of the invention. Figures 1 and 2 are 

reproduced below.

 

modifications do not “alter[] the external appearance of 

the bed.” Id. col. 1 ll. 41–45

Case: 15-1199 Document: 89-2 Page: 9 Filed: 03/31/2016
10 CLARE v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC

Referring to figure 1, which is described as a “conventionally appearing pickup truck,” the specifications state 

that the pickup truck “has been modified in accordance 

with the present invention, with the only indication of 

such modification being the cuts, small spaces, or lines 20 

and 21 in the side panels 15, as shown in FIG. 1, with the 

side panel being closed.” ’795 patent col. 4 ll. 53–64. The 

other features of the storage area are not visible: the 

portion of the storage areas, marked with numbers 22 and 

23 in figure 2, above and to the side of the rear wheels 

does “not extend to the top or upper surface” of the bed;

the latch mechanism and key lock, marked with numbers 

25 and 26 in figure 2, are “mounted in the rear of each of 

the boxes,” which are hidden in a back portion of the truck 

bed as shown in figure 2; and the hinges are located on 

the interior of the storage compartment, as shown in 

figure 3, such that they are “not visible from the exterior.” 

Id. col. 4 l. 66–col. 5 l. 9, col. 5 ll. 23–25. Accordingly, the 

Case: 15-1199 Document: 89-2 Page: 10 Filed: 03/31/2016
CLARE v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC 11

district court’s construction of the external appearance 

limitations is well-supported by the intrinsic record.

Clare first argues that the district court should not 

have construed the external appearance limitations 

because the words “external” and “appearance” are readily apparent to a layperson. We disagree. Although those 

words may be readily apparent to a lay person there 

existed a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of 

those limitations. See O2 Micro Int’l, Ltd. v. Beyond 

Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) 

(“A determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ may be 

inadequate when a term has more than one ‘ordinary’ 

meaning or when reliance on a term’s ‘ordinary’ meaning 

does not resolve the parties’ dispute.”). Clare argued to 

the district court that the scope of the external appearance limitations should focus on the visibility of the 

internal storage box structure, not the external hinged 

panel. According to Clare, even a fluorescent orange 

external panel on a white pickup truck stamped with 

large black letters saying STORAGE would meet the 

limitations so long as the inside of the storage box itself 

could not be seen from the outside of the pickup truck. 

Chrysler, on the other hand, argued that the scope of the 

external appearance limitations should take into account

the external hinged panel used to access the storage area. 

The district court correctly resolved this dispute by construing the external appearance limitations as directed to

the outward appearance of the pickup truck, which takes 

into account the outward-appearing hinged panel.

Clare next argues that the external appearance limitations contain two distinct sets of limitations that should 

be construed separately; the ’795 claims require that the 

inventive pickup truck “has an external appearance of a 

conventional pickup truck” and the ’583 claims require

that the inventive pickup truck “has substantially the 

external appearance of a pickup without the built-in 

Case: 15-1199 Document: 89-2 Page: 11 Filed: 03/31/2016
12 CLARE v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC

storage.” Clare does not propose an alternative construction for either set of limitations, but the ordinary meaning 

of “substantially” has often been recognized to mean 

“largely but not wholly that which is specified.” See, e.g.,

Aventis Pharm. Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363, 

1377 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Although the doctrine of claim 

differentiation is not as strong across related patents as it 

would be if the different claim limitations appeared in the 

same patent, applying the doctrine here indicates that the 

’795 claims at issue require the inventive pickup truck to 

appear identical to a conventional pickup truck. Such a 

construction, however, is problematic because the ’795 

specification is clear that the inventive pickup truck is not 

identical to a conventional pickup truck—vertical cut 

lines are visible from an external appearance. ’795 patent 

col. 4 ll. 41–46 (“Upon completion of the conversion, from 

a side view, the only difference between the converted bed 

and a nonconverted bed are two vertical lines or small 

spaces, one just back of the front of the bed and one just 

forward of the taillight section of the bed, where the side 

panel is cut, as illustrated in FIG. 1.”), col. 4 ll. 59–64 

(“[T]he bed 12 of FIGS. 1 and 2 has been modified in 

accordance with the present invention, with the only 

indication of such modification being the cuts, small 

spaces, or lines 20 and 21 in the side panels 15, as shown 

in FIG. 1, with the side panel being closed.”), col. 5 ll. 33–

37 (“While the invention has been described with respect 

to a pickup bed, it can be readily incorporated into trailer 

or full-sized truck beds having side panels without detracting from the appearance of the side panels, except for 

the two vertical cuts therein.”). Although the specification 

describes these vertical cut lines as being visible, the 

specification also states that these visible cut lines do not 

alter the appearance of the conventional pickup truck. Id.

col. 1 ll. 13–17 (“The present invention relates to . . . a 

storage/utility conversion . . . in a conventional pickup bed 

without altering the external appearance of the bed.”) 

(emphasis added), col. 1 ll. 41–45 (“This need has been 

Case: 15-1199 Document: 89-2 Page: 12 Filed: 03/31/2016
CLARE v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC 13

filled by the present invention which involves the conversion of a conventional pickup truck bed into a storage/utility bed without altering the external appearance of 

the bed . . . .”) (emphasis added), col. 2 ll. 5–8 (“Another 

object of the invention is to reduce theft potential from a 

storage/utility bed of pickup trucks, etc. by providing 

hidden storage utility areas in the bed without altering 

the external appearance of the bed.”) (emphasis added), 

col. 2 ll. 44–52 (“[T]he storage system is formed by a pair 

of vertical cuts in the overall side panel of the bed adjacent ends of the overall side panel, and is constructed 

such that when the side panel is lowered the storage box 

is hidden and the appearance of the bed is not altered.”)

(emphasis added), col. 5 ll. 26–31 (“It has thus been 

shown that the present invention provides a hidden 

storage/utility arrangement that can be initially built into 

a pickup truck bed, or a conventional bed can be converted to include the storage/utility arrangement without 

altering the external appearance of the bed.”) (emphasis 

added). In view of the specification, there is no way to 

read the ’795 claims at issue as requiring the inventive 

pickup truck to appear identical to a conventional pickup 

truck. The specifications expressly and repeatedly state 

that the vertical cut lines which are undisputedly visible 

nonetheless do not alter the external appearance of the 

truck. Thus, the district court did not err in concluding 

that the external appearance limitations are all properly 

construed as requiring a storage box that is not obvious 

from the outward appearance. Differentiating between 

the two sets of claim limitations would also result in the 

’795 claims excluding the specification’s description of the 

invention and the preferred embodiment. See Vitronics 

Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 

1996) (holding that an interpretation that excludes a 

preferred embodiment “is rarely, if ever, correct”). We 

therefore agree with the district court that the limitations 

without the “substantially” modifier do not require that 

the inventive pickup truck appear identical to a convenCase: 15-1199 Document: 89-2 Page: 13 Filed: 03/31/2016
14 CLARE v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC

tional pickup truck, and that a person of ordinary skill in 

the art would understand that the two sets of limitations 

have the same meaning.

Turning to the district court’s construction of the external appearance limitations, Clare argues that the 

construction improperly imports the patent’s purpose—

the deterrence of theft—into the claims. See E-Pass 

Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 

2003) (“The court’s task is not to limit claim language to 

exclude particular devices because they do not serve a 

perceived ‘purpose’ of the invention. Rather, the district 

court’s function is to interpret claims according to their 

plain language unless the patentee has chosen to be his 

own lexicographer in the specification or has clearly 

disclaimed coverage during prosecution.”). The district 

court did not import any theft-deterrent requirement into 

the claims. Instead, the district court properly determined that the claimed “external appearance” of the 

inventive truck must not have an obvious storage box. 

The specifications teach that the inventor’s purpose for 

making the storage box not obviously apparent was to 

deter theft, but the non-obvious appearance of the storage 

box is required of the claimed truck whether or not it 

deters theft. 

Finally, Clare argues that the district court’s construction conflicts with the patentee’s express definition 

in the prosecution history. Specifically, during the prosecution of the application that became the ’795 patent, the 

examiner rejected a number of claims with the “external 

appearance” limitation as indefinite. According to the 

examiner, these claims require that the inventive pickup 

truck “has an external appearance of a conventional 

pickup truck,” but the cut lines make the inventive pickup 

truck visibly distinct from a conventional pickup truck. 

J.A. 4573–74. In response, the patentee defined “appearance” as an “outward aspect,” based on Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, and argued that the 

Case: 15-1199 Document: 89-2 Page: 14 Filed: 03/31/2016
CLARE v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC 15

examiner erred in determining that “appearance” requires 

a “visibly indistinct look.” J.A. 4606–07. The patentee 

then stated that “the ordinary interpretation of the [external appearance limitations is] that the outward aspects 

of the inventive pickup truck are like the outward aspects 

of a pickup truck that does not have a storage box.” J.A. 

4606. The patentee went on to cite excerpts from the 

specification in support of his assertion that “the word 

‘appearance’ as used in the specification contemplates 

some visible distinctions such as, for example, hinges, 

latches, vertical cuts, etc.” J.A. 4607. The examiner, in 

the Notice of Allowance, allowed the claims because the 

patentee’s remarks concerning the external appearance 

limitations are “deemed to define” over the indefiniteness 

rejection. J.A. 4644. Clare concludes that the patentee in 

the prosecution history defined the external appearance 

limitations to include outwardly visible hinges and latches.

We disagree with Clare’s conclusion for two reasons. 

First, the specifications do not contemplate visible hinges 

or latches. The excerpts from the specifications cited by 

the patentee, which are reflected in the ’795 patent column 1 lines 41–54, column 2 lines 46–52, column 3 lines 

34–41, and column 5 lines 33–37, repeatedly emphasize 

that the external appearance of the truck is not altered 

except for two vertical cuts. The specific excerpts quoted 

by the patentee do mention hinges and laches, but the 

specifications as a whole make clear that the hinges and 

laches are not visible from the outside of the truck. See

’795 patent col. 4 ll. 46–49 (“The hinge for each side panel 

is located on an inner area of the side panel so as not to be 

exposed to one viewing the bed from an external side 

position.”), col. 5 ll. 23–25 (“The hinges 30 are located on 

the interior of the bed 12 and thus not visible from the 

exterior.”), Figure 2 (showing the latch mechanism 25 

mounted in the rear of the internal storage boxes, which 

are not visible from the exterior). Second, the patentee’s 

Case: 15-1199 Document: 89-2 Page: 15 Filed: 03/31/2016
16 CLARE v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC

recitation of visible hinges and laches in the prosecution 

history cannot expand the scope of the specifications, 

particularly where the patentee incorrectly characterizes 

the specifications, which do not contemplate any visible 

features more obvious than vertical cuts. Biogen, Inc. v. 

Berlex Labs., Inc., 318 F.3d 1132, 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 

(“Representations during prosecution cannot enlarge the 

content of the specification . . . .”). In light of the specifications, we interpret the patentee’s statements in the 

prosecution history as arguing that the claims are not so 

narrow to require “visibly indistinct” modifications. This 

is consistent with the district court’s construction of the 

external appearance limitations.

We have considered all of Clare’s remaining arguments and find them without merit.

II. Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement

In view of the district court’s construction of the external appearance limitations, the district court determined that no reasonable juror could find that the 

accused trucks met the external appearance limitations. 

In making this determination, the district court relied on 

deposition admissions by Clare’s expert, Dr. Akin, who 

testified multiple times that the hinged panel of the 

RamBox’s storage compartment, the lock, the two vertical 

and one horizontal cut lines, and the bed modifications 

are visible and apparent to a casual observer. The district 

court also relied on deposition admissions by Clare’s two 

fact witnesses, who testified that the external door to the 

RamBox’s storage compartment was obvious. 

Clare argues that there are genuine factual disputes 

that prevent a finding of non-infringement at the summary judgment phase. The evidence pointed to by Clare, 

however, is based on an incorrect understanding of the 

district court’s claim construction. For example, Dr. Akin

in his expert report states that the internal storage box in 

the modified Dodge Ram is not obvious because a casual 

Case: 15-1199 Document: 89-2 Page: 16 Filed: 03/31/2016
CLARE v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC 17

observer would not know that a storage box is below the 

hinged panel; the hinged panel could be concealing an 

electronic panel or a fuel tank. Dr. Akin’s statement 

misunderstands the district court’s claim construction in 

two ways. First, a storage box is a separate element of 

the claim that must be met in order for the accused truck 

to infringe. If the accused truck has an electronic panel or 

fuel tank instead of a storage box, then the accused truck 

does not infringe the storage box limitation, regardless of 

the external appearance of the truck. Second, the external appearance limitations as construed require that the 

storage box, including the portion of the storage box on

the side panel of the truck that opens up to expose the 

storage area, is not obvious from the outward appearance 

of the truck. If the panel is obvious from the outward 

appearance of the pickup truck, then the external appearance limitations are not met.

In his expert report, Dr. Akin also states that the 

hinged panel is not obvious because it is not visible from 

some angles, perspectives, and distances. The district 

court’s claim construction, however, does not require that 

the hinged panel be obvious from every angle, perspective, 

and distance, and such a requirement would be nonsensical in the context of the specifications. Clare is correct 

that the construction does not specify which angles, 

perspectives, or distances are contemplated, but the 

specifications make clear that the external appearance of 

the truck is viewed by a casual observer looking at the 

modified side panel. See, e.g., ’795 patent col. 4 ll. 41–46 

(“Upon completion of the conversion, from a side view, the 

only difference between the converted bed and a nonconverted bed are two vertical lines or small spaces, one just 

back of the front of the bed and one just forward of the 

taillight section of the bed, where the side panel is cut, as 

illustrated in FIG. 1.”), col. 4 ll. 49–52 (“Thus, one would 

not readily recognize the modification to the bed, and 

Case: 15-1199 Document: 89-2 Page: 17 Filed: 03/31/2016
18 CLARE v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC

therefore those with intent to steal tools, etc. would not 

recognize the hidden storage arrangement.”). 

Clare also points to portions of Dr. Akin’s expert report that discuss his opinions as to why the external panel 

of the RamBox is not obvious: the panel has matching 

contours, matching paint colors, matching texture, inconspicuous cut lines that follow the body lines of the bed, 

and vertical lines that are placed at an angle to match 

nearby structures while maintaining a flush fit between 

the panel and the side of the bed. Taking Dr. Akin’s 

opinions as true for the purpose of summary judgment, we 

find no disputed issue of material fact to preclude summary judgment. The RamBox panel can have all the 

features enumerated by Dr. Akin in his expert report, and 

still be visible and apparent to a casual observer as Dr. 

Akin testified in his deposition, such that the panel is 

obvious from an outward appearance. 

The evidence in front of the district court contained 

many pictures of the accused products from relevant 

viewpoints. Two such pictures are shown below. See J.A. 

2932, 3404. Reviewing the evidence de novo and drawing 

all reasonable inferences in Clare’s favor, we agree with 

the district court that no reasonable juror could find that 

the hinged portion of the RamBox’s storage compartment 

was not obvious from the outward appearance of the 

accused trucks.

Case: 15-1199 Document: 89-2 Page: 18 Filed: 03/31/2016
CLARE v. CHRYSLER GROUP LLC 19

CONCLUSION

The district court correctly construed the external appearance limitations and granted summary judgment of 

non-infringement. The decision of the district court is 

therefore

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Costs to Chrysler.

Case: 15-1199 Document: 89-2 Page: 19 Filed: 03/31/2016