Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05224/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05224-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 5,722,553 AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT—No. C-08-05224 RMW

LJP

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 1/13/10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SCIENTIFIC SPECIALTIES INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INC.,

Defendant.

No. C-08-05224 RMW

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS OF

UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 5,722,553

AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING

IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT

[Re Docket Nos. 40, 42]

Scientific Specialties Inc. ("SSI") brings this suit against Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.

("TFS") alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,722,553 ("'553 patent"), which is

directed to an integral assembly of hollow tubes and seal caps. TFS asserts counterclaims for

declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. The parties seek construction of seven

phrases in the '553 patent. TFS also moves for summary judgment of non-infringement. The court

held a claim construction hearing and heard argument on the summary judgment motion on

November 3, 2009. After consideration of the claims, specification, prosecution history, and other

relevant evidence, and after hearing the arguments of the parties, the court construes the disputed

Case 5:08-cv-05224-RMW Document 55 Filed 01/13/10 Page 1 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 5,722,553 AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT—No. C-08-05224 RMW

LJP 2

language of the patent-in-suit and grants in part and denies in part TFS's motion for summary

judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

Both SSI and TFS design and manufacture plastic products, including reagent tubes, that are

used in scientific research. The '553 patent is directed to a strip of reagent tubes wherein each tube

has an independently tethered seal cap. Reagent tubes are small, about an inch long, which makes

them difficult to manipulate individually. '553 Patent at 3:20-30. To solve this problem, tubes are

connected side-by-side in a strip. Id. at 2:24-26, 3:20-30. The seal caps may also be connected in a

strip that fits on top of the tube strip. However, it is advantageous to provide each tube with an

independently tethered seal cap, which allows each tube to be sealed or unsealed without affecting

the other tubes in the strip. Id. at 3:29-34. The seal caps are attached at an angle to the row of tubes

to minimize the overall width of the assembly. Id. at 1:48-52.

The '553 patent has 18 claims. Claims 1, 15, and 17 are independent claims. For illustration,

claim 1 is reproduced below:

An integral assembly of a multiplicity of spaced reagent tubes arranged in an

elongated aligned series, said tubes each having an open end and a closed end, the

open ends of adjacent tubes integrally connected by a series of aligned tethers, and a

corresponding multiplicity of correspondingly spaced independent seal caps, each

seal cap having a tubular seal skirt portion symmetrical about a central axis and

adapted to selectively sealingly engage the open end of an associated reagent tube,

each said seal cap being independently pivotally connected integrally and angularly

to an associated one of said reagent tubes at an angle other than 90 degrees to the

elongated aligned series in which said reagent tubes are arranged and independently

selectively manipulable in relation to the open end of said associated reagent tube to

superimpose said seal cap thereover to selectively effect sealing penetration of said

tubular skirt portion into or out of said open end to seal or unseal the open end of said

associated reagent tube.

TFS makes and sells a line of products called ABgene EasyStrip Snap Tubes ("EasyStrip"). 

SSI contends that the products designated AB-1502, AB-1502/w, and AB-1504 infringe at least

claims 1, 15, and 17 of the '553 patent. All three products consist of two pieces: a reagent tube strip

and a strip of rings and caps. Declaration of Jeffrey Coulling ("Coulling Decl.") ¶ 2. Each cap is

independently connected to an associated ring, and the rings are joined by tethers. Id. ¶¶ 6-7. The

rings are designed to be press-fit at an upper region of the tubes. Id. ¶ 8. The products are different

Case 5:08-cv-05224-RMW Document 55 Filed 01/13/10 Page 2 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 SSI omits the word "aligned" in its proposed construction for this language as it appears in claim

15.

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 5,722,553 AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT—No. C-08-05224 RMW

LJP 3

in that the AB-1502 and AB-1502/w products have flat caps while the AB-1504 product has a

domed cap. Id. ¶ 2. The AB-1502 and AB-1502/w products are identical except in color. Id.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Construction of Disputed Language

Construction of a patent, including terms of art within a claim, is exclusively within the

province of the court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 388 (1996). In

determining the meaning of a disputed claim limitation, the intrinsic evidence, including the claim

language, written description, and prosecution history, is the most significant. Phillips v. AWH

Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Words of a claim "are generally given their ordinary

and customary meaning" as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 1312-13. 

Claims are read in view of the specification, which is the "single best guide to the meaning of the

disputed term." Id. at 1315. A court "should also consider the patent's prosecution history, if it is in

evidence." Id. at 1317.

1. "An integral assembly of a multiplicity of spaced reagent tubes arranged

in an elongated . . . series . . . and a corresponding multiplicity of

correspondingly spaced independent seal caps" (Claims 1, 15, and 17)

SSI's Proposed Construction TFS's Proposed Construction

a contiguous component comprising a

series of reagent tubes spaced apart . . . a

series of [aligned]1

 components where the

length of the series is greater than the

dimensions of the individual components .

. . individually manipulable seal caps that

correspond in number to the reagent

tubes, the spacing of the seal caps

corresponding to a spacing of the reagent

tubes, the number of seal caps and reagent

tubes each being more than one

a one-piece article of manufacture of a

number of spaced reagent tubes arranged

in an elongated series and a

corresponding number of spaced

independent seal caps and excludes an

article of manufacture where the reagent

tubes and seal caps are formed separately

in two pieces and then physically joined

Case 5:08-cv-05224-RMW Document 55 Filed 01/13/10 Page 3 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Indeed, the words appear so frequently in some places that it is difficult to see how they are not

redundant or circular. See, e.g., '553 Patent at 1:67 to 2:4 ("an integral 'live' hinge integrally

interposed in the tether . . . enabling flexible manipulation of each . . . cap . . . from an angularly

related integral extended condition to an integral superimposed tube-sealing condition"); id. at 4:56-

57 ("the thin hinge portion is integral with the remainder of the strap with which it is integrally

formed").

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 5,722,553 AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT—No. C-08-05224 RMW

LJP 4

The '553 patent repeatedly refers to the claimed invention as an "integral assembly," and the

terms "integral" and "integrally" appear frequently in the specification and claims.2

 At the core of

many of the disputed terms is a disagreement between the parties about the meaning of the word

"integral." SSI contends that "integral" means (circularly) "forming a unit such as to be complete

and composed of integral parts" and that "integral assembly" refers to a series of individual elements

coming together (i.e. assembled) to function as a contiguous component (i.e. operating in an integral

manner). TFS contends that "integral assembly" refers to a one-piece article of manufacture.

Despite the terms' frequent usage, neither "integral" nor "integrally" is defined in the patent. 

In discussing the background of the invention, the inventor states:

It is particularly advantageous in the handling of reagent-containing vials or tubes,

such as microcentrifuge tubes, that the tubes and the independently tethered caps for

sealing the tubes constitute a unitary assembly. Accordingly, it is one of the objects

of the present invention to provide a unitary assembly of multiple hollow tubes

integrally connected to one another and to a corresponding number of seal caps

independently tethered to an associated tube so that the integral assembly of tubes

and caps may be handled as a unit while enabling each of the seal caps to be

independently sealed or unsealed from the tube to which it is independently integrally

tethered.

'553 Patent at 1:36-47 (emphasis added). Thus, it appears that the goal of providing for an "integral

assembly" is to allow the apparatus to be handled as a unit. This is similar to SSI's definition of

"integral," but the proposed construction "contiguous component" is seemingly too broad. The

terms "integral" and "integrally" frequently modify words that already imply that two pieces are

contiguous, such as in the phrases "integrally connected," "integrally tethered," "integral

connection," and "merges integrally." E.g., id. at 1:41-42, 2:27, 2:55-56, 3:60, 3:65, 4:26. Thus,

"integral" and "integrally" must mean something more than "contiguous."

Depending on the context, courts have construed the term "integral" to broadly mean forming

a unit or to narrowly refer to being formed in one piece. See, e.g., Vanguard Prods. Corp. v. Parker

Hannifin Corp., 234 F.3d 1370, 1371, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("formed as a unit with another part");

Case 5:08-cv-05224-RMW Document 55 Filed 01/13/10 Page 4 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 5,722,553 AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT—No. C-08-05224 RMW

LJP 5

In re Hotte, 647 (C.C.P.A. 1973) ("sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means

as fastening and welding"); Am. Piledriving Equip., Inc. v. Bay Mach. Corp., 632 F. Supp. 2d 956,

965 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ("formed or cast of one piece"); Parker-Hannifin Corp. v. Wix Filtration

Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24540 at *27 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2008) ("formed in a single piece"). 

TFS urges the court to follow Parker-Hannifin, which construed "integral" to mean "formed in a

single piece." The patent at issue in Parker-Hannifin used language such as "integral end cap

assembly" and "an annular flange integral with said first end cap." 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24540 at

*19-20. The specification stated that the flange should be molded as a single unit with the top end

cap. Id. at *22. The court held that such single-unit construction was consistent with the term

"integral," and "[t]here is nothing in the claims or specifications that indicate that 'integral' requires

more than one part." Id. at *22-23. Thus, like other cases that limit "integral" to a one-piece article,

Parker-Hannifin involved a patent that clearly indicated the elements should be formed in one piece. 

While the only embodiment discussed in the '553 patent involves a one-piece article of manufacture,

the specification does not explicitly limit the invention to that structure, nor is it clear that "integral"

refers only to a single injection-molded piece as described in the preferred embodiment.

TFS argues that the specification uses "integral assembly" synonymously with "unitary

assembly" and uses "unitary" in the sense of a single structure. The only language regarding a single

structure is the statement, describing the preferred embodiment, that "the flexible hinge straps, the

integrally connected tubes, and the seal caps are all preferably formed as a single unitary structure

by injection molding from a suitable synthetic resinous material." '553 Patent at 4:30-33 (emphasis

added). Far from limiting either "integral" or "unitary" to a single structure, this language suggests

that the apparatus is preferably a single unitary structure but need not be. TFS's argument that

"preferably" modifies "injection molding" rather than "single unitary structure" is unpersuasive. 

Although the inventor was often liberal with his use and positioning of adverbs, TFS's interpretation

greatly strains the rules of grammar. Moreover, the inventor earlier states that the preferred

embodiment "comprises a multiplicity . . . of tubes, injection molded from a suitable plastic," id. at

3:25-37, suggesting that the new preference being expressed is that of forming the entire article,

from tubes through seal caps, as a single structure.

Case 5:08-cv-05224-RMW Document 55 Filed 01/13/10 Page 5 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 5,722,553 AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT—No. C-08-05224 RMW

LJP 6

TFS also relies on the prosecution history to argue that the invention must be a single

structure. During prosecution, the examiner rejected certain claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being

unpatentable over Irwin, et al. (United States Patent No. 3,139,208) in vew of Berg (United States

Patent No. 2,949,203). Springer Decl., Ex. F ¶ 4. Specifically, the examiner found "[i]t would have

been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have employed the cap open position taught by

Berg, Fig. 2, in the construction of the device of Irwin, et. al., motivated by the ease of molding

such." Id. In response, the inventor argued:

the flat plate 8 of Irwin et al is integral with the tubes 6, the flat plate configuration

being chosen specifically to retain the associated receptacles 6 for paint materials

associated with one another to permit "paint by the numbers" facility to the user of

the assembly. Additionally, the Berg structure illustrated in FIG. 2 is a separate

manufacture from the container 10, and is disposed removably on the neck of the

container 10 for purposes of convenience. Thus, attempting to mold the injection

molded part of Berg as illustrated in FIG. 2 into the structure of Irwin et al, which

presumably is also injection molded, would serve no useful purpose revealed by

Irwin et al, would not be simpler or more easy, but much more complex, and certainly

therefore a logical inference cannot be deduced that the molding process and

structure resulting therefrom would be facilitated by the proposed re-design and

reconstruction. If anything it would be made more complex and difficult, therefore

teaching away from the proposed reconstruction.

Springer Decl., Ex. G at 14. TFS argues that this excerpt (1) uses "integral" to refer to the one-piece

unit in Irwin and (2) states that converting the inventor's one-piece unit of manufacture into a

structure with parts of separate manufacture would be teaching away from the invention. It is true

that Irwin describes a one-piece unit and in fact touts his invention as "lend[ing] itself to inexpensive

production as a unitary molding . . . by reason of the fact that the [pieces] are all formed integrally

with one another." Irwin at 1:21-25. However, using the word "integral" to refer to a one-piece unit

of manufacture does not imply that "integral" cannot also describe something else. In addition, the

inventor never argues that a structure with parts of separate manufacture were not contemplated by

his invention. He argued that there was no motivation to combine Irwin with Berg, i.e. that the

invention was non-obvious. This is fully consistent with an argument that the invention included

multi-part units. Thus, the prosecution history does not support TFS's narrow definition of

"integral."

In conclusion, the '553 patent uses "integral" to mean more than a one-piece article but less

than anything that is contiguous. The court finds that "integral" and "integrally" refer to pieces

Case 5:08-cv-05224-RMW Document 55 Filed 01/13/10 Page 6 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 5,722,553 AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT—No. C-08-05224 RMW

LJP 7

joined in such a way as to form a single unit. Thus, the court construes the language at issue as "a

number of spaced reagent tubes arranged in an elongated series with a corresponding number of

individually manipulable seal caps, the spacing of the seal caps corresponding to the spacing of the

reagent tubes, all joined so as to form a unit."

2. "the open ends of the adjacent tubes integrally connected by a series of

aligned tethers" (Claim 1)

SSI's Proposed Construction TFS's Proposed Construction

the components of the series are joined in

a contiguous manner by a series of tethers

oriented in a common direction

adjacent tubes are connected together by

tethers at their open ends (i.e., at the plane

of the element 7 in Fig. 6) and excludes

an assembly where the adjacent tubes are

connected by tethers spaced below their

open ends

The parties dispute two aspects of this claim language. First, the parties dispute the scope of

the term "integrally," which the court resolves above. Second, the parties dispute the location of the

tethers that connect the adjacent tubes. Under TFS's construction, the tethers must be at the open

ends of the tubes and the language excludes an assembly the adjacent tubes are connected by tethers

spaced below their open ends. At the claim construction hearing, counsel for SSI agreed that claim

1 requires that there be tethers at the open ends of the tubes. However, SSI argues, there is no basis

for excluding an assembly that also has tethers at other locations.

As SSI points out, claim 1 does not use close-ended claim language that would exclude

additional elements not described. In addition, claim 18 provides "[t]he integral assembly according

to claim 17 . . . whereby said tethers comprise the only interconnection between said reagent tubes." 

Thus, the inventor used clear language when he required the tethers at the open ends to be the only

tethers. There is no basis for a similar limitation in claim 1. Thus, the court construes the disputed

language to mean "adjacent tubes are joined so as to form a unit by a series of aligned tethers that

attach at the plane of the open ends of each respective tube."

Case 5:08-cv-05224-RMW Document 55 Filed 01/13/10 Page 7 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 5,722,553 AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT—No. C-08-05224 RMW

LJP 8

3. "tether means coincident with the plane of the open ends of the

multiplicity of tubes integrally interconnecting adjacent tubes, said tether

means being coincident with the plane including the central axes of said

multiplicity of spaced reagent tubes . . . said tether means integrally

connecting the annular flanges of adjacent reagent tubes" (Claim 15)

SSI's Proposed Construction TFS's Proposed Construction

the components of the series are joined in

a contiguous manner by a series of tethers

coincident with the 'open end plane'; the

plane of the tether is coincident with the

plane of the central axes . . . tethers

connect the annular flange of adjacent

tubes in a contiguous manner

adjacent tubes are connected together by

tethers at their open ends (i.e., at the plane

of element 7 in Fig. 6) and excludes an

assembly where the adjacent tubes are

connected by tethers spaced below their

open ends

As above, the key portions of this disputed language are the term "integrally" and the

location of the tethers relative to the open ends of the tubes. This language is clear as to the location

of the tethers ("coincident with the plane of the open ends"), and as with claim 1 discussed above,

there is no basis for excluding structures that have additional tethers not at the open ends. The

parties agree that the language "tether means" does not invoke the means plus function provisions of

35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Thus, the court finds that, except for the term "integrally," this language does

not require construction.

4. "the open ends of adjacent tubes integrally connected directly by a series

of aligned tethers" (Claim 17)

SSI's Proposed Construction TFS's Proposed Construction

individual tubes are contiguously

connected to adjacent tubes by members

aligned in a common direction

adjacent tubes are connected together by

tethers at their open ends (i.e., at the plane

of the element 7 in Fig. 6) and excludes

an assembly where the adjacent tubes are

connected by tethers spaced below their

open ends

This language has the same import as the language construed in Part II.A.2 above, except

that it has the additional word "directly." The parties' proposed constructions do not account for this

difference, i.e. they are identical to the proposed constructions above. At the claim construction

hearing, counsel for TFS represented that the term "directly" does not affect the infringement

analysis in this case. "[W]hile interpretations that render some portion of the claim language

superfluous are disfavored, where neither the plain meaning nor the patent itself commands a

Case 5:08-cv-05224-RMW Document 55 Filed 01/13/10 Page 8 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 5,722,553 AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT—No. C-08-05224 RMW

LJP 9

difference in scope between two terms, they may be construed identically." Power Mosfet Techs.,

LLC v. Siemens AG, 378 F.3d 1396, 1410 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (finding "the addition of the term

'directly' to an existing requirement of physical contact imposes no additional restrictions on the

phrase"). Thus, the court construes this language to have the same meaning as the language in Part

II.A.2, i.e. "adjacent tubes are joined so as to form a unit by a series of aligned tethers that attach at

the plane of the open ends of each respective tube."

5. "each said seal cap being independently pivotally connected integrally . . .

to an associated one of said reagent tubes" (Claims 1 and 15)

SSI's Proposed Construction TFS's Proposed Construction

an individual seal cap is contiguously

connected to each tube by a flexible

member at an angle to the common

direction of the elongated series

each seal cap is independently and

pivotally connected to an associated

reagent tube in a one piece construction

and excludes a construction in which each

seal cap is pivotally connected to a ring

which is then physically connected to a

reagent tube

As with other claim language, this dispute turns on the construction of the term "integrally." 

Consistent with the meaning of "integrally" as discussed above, the court construes this language to

mean "each seal cap is independently and pivotally joined so as to form a unit with an associated

reagent tube."

6. "each said seal cap being independently pivotally directly connected

integrally . . . to an associated one of said reagent tubes" (Claim 17)

SSI's Proposed Construction TFS's Proposed Construction

an individual seal cap is contiguously

connected to each tube by a flexible

member at an angle to the common

direction of the elongated series

each seal cap is independently and

pivotally connected to an associated

reagent tube in a one piece construction

and excludes a construction in which each

seal cap is pivotally connected to a ring

which is then physically connected to a

reagent tube

This language is identical to that construed in the preceding section, except that it has the

additional word "directly." As with the claim language construed in Part II.A.4 above, the parties

apparently agree that the word "directly" has no import. Thus, the court construes this language to

have the same meaning as the language in the preceding section.

Case 5:08-cv-05224-RMW Document 55 Filed 01/13/10 Page 9 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 5,722,553 AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT—No. C-08-05224 RMW

LJP 10

7. "each said seal cap including a semi-spherically domed wall portion

constituting said closed end" (Claim 15)

The parties agree that this phrase should have the construction "each said seal cap has a

rounded end in the shape of a semi-spherically domed wall portion and excludes a seal cap having a

flat or planar closed end." Thus, the court adopts this construction.

B. TFS's Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement

To prove infringement, the patentee must show that the accused device meets each claim

limitation, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Deering Precision Instruments,

L.L.C. v. Vector Distrib. Sys., Inc., 347 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Summary judgment of

non-infringement is proper when no reasonable jury could find that the accused device contains

every limitation recited in the properly construed claim. PC Connector Solutions LLC v. SmartDisk

Corp., 406 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2005). SSI and TFS have stipulated that "if a claim term is

not designated for construction that said element is present in the accused product(s)." Scheduling

Order at 4. Thus, the non-infringement analysis reduces to whether the seven phrases construed

above are present in the accused products.

1. "Integral" and "Integrally"

TFS argues that the EasyStrip products do not literally infringe any claims of the '553 patent

under its proposed constructions. Specifically, TFS argues that "integral" and "integrally" refer to a

one-piece article of manufacture and thus could not read on EasyStrip's two-piece design. Thus,

TFS argues, EasyStrip lacks three limitations that are present in all of the independent claims: (1) an

"integral assembly," (2) open ends integrally connected by tethers, and (3) seal caps integrally

connected to associated reagent tubes.

Because the court rejects TFS's narrow definition of "integral," these arguments fail. A jury

could find that the two pieces of the EasyStrip design are meant to join so as to form a unit and that,

in their assembled form, the three limitations are present. Thus, summary judgment of noninfringement on the basis of the terms "integral" and "integrally" is denied.

Case 5:08-cv-05224-RMW Document 55 Filed 01/13/10 Page 10 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 5,722,553 AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT—No. C-08-05224 RMW

LJP 11

2. Semi-Spherically Domed Seal Caps

With respect to claim 15, TFS also argues that the AB-1502 and AB-1502/w products do not

infringe because their caps do not have a semi-spherically domed wall portion and SSI may not

assert infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. SSI concedes that the AB-1502 and AB1502/w products do not literally infringe, as their caps are flat instead of semi-spherically domed. 

Rather, SSI argues that these products infringe under the doctrine of equivalents because "[b]oth

caps with domed portions and caps with flat portions are configured to seal an open end of a reagent

tube," i.e. they perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the

same result. SSI's Claim Construction Brief at 23-24.

A court may render summary judgment that the accused device is not equivalent if the

asserted equivalence would entirely vitiate a particular claim element. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v.

Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 39 (1997). A corollary to the rule against vitiating a claim

element is that "equivalency cannot embrace a structure that is specifically excluded from the scope

of the claims." Athletic Alternatives v. Prince Mfg., 73 F.3d 1573, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Here, the

parties' agreed-upon construction of the language "each said seal cap including a semi-spherically

domed wall portion constituting said closed end" in claim 15 specifically excludes "a seal cap

having a flat or planar closed end." Thus, SSI is barred from regaining this excluded structure

through the doctrine of equivalents. Even if the construction did not explicitly exclude a flat cap,

"[a] claim that contains a detailed recitation of structure is properly accorded correspondingly

limited recourse to the doctrine of equivalents." Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 955

(Fed. Cir. 2006) (finding recitation of a frusto-spherical basal surface excluded "distinctly different

and even opposite shapes"). Claim 15's recitation of a domed seal cap is specific enough that it

cannot reach flat seal caps through equivalence. Moreover, SSI's theory that both shapes perform

the function of sealing a reagent tube would extend to any shape of seal cap. A result in which any

shape is equivalent to a specific shape limitation is "impermissible under the all-elements rule of

Warner-Jenkinson." Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Thus, as a

matter of law, the AB-1502 and AB-1502/w products do not infringe claim 15.

Case 5:08-cv-05224-RMW Document 55 Filed 01/13/10 Page 11 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 5,722,553 AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT—No. C-08-05224 RMW

LJP 12

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court:

1. Grants summary judgment that the AB-1502 and AB-1502/w products do not infringe 

claim 15 and denies the remainder of TFS's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement; and

2. Construes the disputed claim language as follows:

CLAIM LANGUAGE CONSTRUCTION

"An integral assembly of a multiplicity of

spaced reagent tubes arranged in an elongated .

. . series . . . and a corresponding multiplicity of

correspondingly spaced independent seal caps"

a number of spaced reagent tubes arranged in

an elongated series with a corresponding

number of individually manipulable seal caps,

the spacing of the seal caps corresponding to

the spacing of the reagent tubes, all joined so as

to form a unit

"the open ends of the adjacent tubes integrally

connected by a series of aligned tethers"

adjacent tubes are joined so as to form a unit by

a series of aligned tethers that attach at the

plane of the open end of each respective tube

"tether means coincident with the plane of the

open ends of the multiplicity of tubes integrally

interconnecting adjacent tubes, said tether

means being coincident with the plane

including the central axes of said multiplicity of

spaced reagent tubes . . . said tether means

integrally connecting the annular flanges of

adjacent reagent tubes"

"integrally" refers to being joined so as to form

a unit; "tether means" is not in means plus

function format

"the open ends of adjacent tubes integrally

connected directly by a series of aligned

tethers"

adjacent tubes are joined so as to form a unit by

a series of aligned tethers that attach at the

plane of the open end of each respective tube

"each said seal cap being independently

pivotally connected integrally . . . to an

associated one of said reagent tubes"

each seal cap is independently and pivotally

joined so as to form a unit with an associated

reagent tube

"each said seal cap being independently

pivotally directly connected integrally . . . to an

associated one of said reagent tubes"

each seal cap is independently and pivotally

joined so as to form a unit with an associated

reagent tube

"each said seal cap including a semi-spherically

domed wall portion constituting said closed

end"

each said seal cap has a rounded end in the

shape of a semi-spherically domed wall portion

and excludes a seal cap having a flat or planar

closed end

3. Schedules a case management conference for February 5, 2010 at 10:30 AM.

DATED: 1/13/10

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:08-cv-05224-RMW Document 55 Filed 01/13/10 Page 12 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 5,722,553 AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN

PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT—No. C-08-05224 RMW

LJP 13

Notice of this document has been sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Tam Thanh Thi Pham tpham@carrferrell.com

Colby B. Springer cspringer@carrferrell.com

Robert Joseph Yorio yorio@carrferrell.com

Counsel for Defendant:

J. Robert Chambers bchambers@whepatent.com

Charles S. Crompton III charles.crompton@lw.com

Tracey Lynn Orick tracey.orick@lw.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 1/13/10 CCL

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:08-cv-05224-RMW Document 55 Filed 01/13/10 Page 13 of 13