Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01200/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01200-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

POLY-AMERICA, L.P.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

API INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1200

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 1:14-cv-00599-SLR-SRF, 

Judge Sue L. Robinson.

______________________ 

Decided: October 14, 2016 

______________________ 

AARON P. MAURER, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by SANJIV PRAKASH LAUD, CRAIG D. SINGER. 

JACK B. BLUMENFELD, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE, argued for defendant-appellee. 

Also represented by MICHAEL J. FLYNN; MARK I. KOFFSKY, 

EFREM SCHWALB, Koffsky Schwalb LLC, New York, NY.

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

Case: 16-1200 Document: 48-2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/14/2016
2 POLY-AMERICA, L.P. v. API INDUSTRIES, INC. 

REYNA, Circuit Judge. 

This case is about disavowal of claim scope. The specification and prosecution history of Poly-America, L.P.’s 

(“Poly-America”) U.S. Patent No. 8,702,308 (“’308 patent”)

contain clear and unequivocal statements that the inventor intended to limit the claimed invention to a trash bag

with “short seals” at its upper corners that extend inwardly to narrow the bag’s upper opening. In light of the 

inventor’s disavowal, the district court correctly construed 

the term “short seal” to require that such seals extend 

inwardly. We therefore affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Patented Technology

The ’308 patent is “directed toward an improved construction of an elastic drawstring trash bag.” ’308 patent 

col. 3 ll. 46−47. 

Id. fig. 1. 

Case: 16-1200 Document: 48-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/14/2016
POLY-AMERICA, L.P. v. API INDUSTRIES, INC. 3

The claimed apparatus is made from two “panels” of 

polymeric material joined at the sides and the bottom to 

form an enclosed bag. At the bottom, the panels are 

joined by a “bottom fold.” At the top, a piece of each panel 

is folded over and sealed to form a “hem.” Inside each 

hem is a drawstring. See id. col. 3 ll. 46−54. 

The patent identifies two different seals located along 

the sides of the bag. The long seals along the length of 

the panels are referred to as “side seals.” Id. col. 4 

ll. 66−67. The small seals in the upper corners of the bag 

are referred to as “short seals.” Id. col. 5 ll. 25−30. The 

short seals bind together each panel’s hem and the ends of 

the drawstrings located therein. Id. 

A principal feature of the claimed invention is PolyAmerica’s use of inwardly extended short seals to reduce 

the width of the trash bag’s upper opening. When coupled 

with elastic drawstrings, the narrowed opening allows 

those drawstrings to wrap around the rim of a trash 

receptacle more securely than prior art trash bags that do

not have a narrowed upper opening. See id. col. 6 

l. 32−col. 7 l. 19. 

Throughout its written description, the ’308 patent 

indicates the significance of the extended short seal 

feature and the reduced upper opening width the extended short seals provide. To start, the title of the invention 

is “Reduced Opening Elastic Drawstring Bag.” The 

Abstract explains that:

[w]hen the bag of the present invention is in a relaxed state, the reduced upper opening width of 

the elastic drawstring bag is therefore less than 

bag proper width, allowing a consumer to pull the 

elastic drawstring bag over the lip of a trash receptacle and allowing the elastic drawstrings to 

snugly fit around the trashcan. 

Case: 16-1200 Document: 48-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/14/2016
4 POLY-AMERICA, L.P. v. API INDUSTRIES, INC. 

The Background of the Invention section explains that 

prior art trash bags do not have extended short seals and 

can be difficult to secure over the lip of a trash receptacle. 

Id. col. 2 ll. 15−54. The Summary of the Invention states 

that: “Embodiments of the elastic drawstring bag contemplated by the present invention have an upper opening 

with a width that is less than 97% of the width of the rest 

of the bag (by virtue of the extended short seals).” Id. col. 

4 ll. 4−7. Of the five figures in the ’308 patent, the only 

figure that does not reveal a reduced upper opening by 

virtue of extended short seals is the figure that depicts 

prior art drawstring bags. Id. figs. 1−5. 

The written description reiterates that the use of extended short seals to reduce the width of the bag’s upper 

opening is an improvement upon prior art trash bags. Id.

col. 5 ll. 46−57. It also identifies the use of extended short 

seals to create a reduced width upper opening as “one of 

the characteristics of the present invention”: 

In looking at both FIG. 1 and FIG 2, it is important to note that one of the characteristics of 

the present invention is a reduction in the upper 

width (when the bag is in a relaxed state) of the 

bag resulting from the extended short seals.

Id. col. 6 ll. 11−15. 

B. Independent and Dependent Claims

The ’308 patent has three independent claims: 1, 10, 

and 16. Claim 10 differs from claims 1 and 16 in that it 

does not explicitly provide for a narrowed opening. Claim 

1 includes a limitation of “the relaxed upper opening 

width being less than the bag proper width.” Id. col. 7 

ll. 27−52. Claim 16 describes “the distance between an 

interior edge of the first short seal and an interior edge of 

the second seal being less than a bag proper width.” Id.

col. 8 l. 65−col. 9 l. 18. In contrast, claim 10 does not 

expressly state any limitation as to the size of the short 

Case: 16-1200 Document: 48-2 Page: 4 Filed: 10/14/2016
POLY-AMERICA, L.P. v. API INDUSTRIES, INC. 5

seals or the relationship between the size of the upper 

opening and the bag proper: 

10. An elastic drawstring trash bag comprising:

a polymeric bag comprised of a first panel 

and a second panel, the first panel and the 

second panel joined at a first side, a second side, and a bottom,

a first hem formed in the first panel, the 

first hem having a first elastic drawstring 

disposed therein,

a second hem formed in the second panel, 

the second hem having a second elastic 

drawstring disposed therein,

the first panel, the first elastic drawstring, 

the second panel, and the second elastic 

drawstring inseparably joined together at 

a first short seal and at a second short 

seal, and

a first access cutout along the upper edge 

of the first panel and a second access cutout along the upper edge of the second 

panel, the first and second elastic drawstrings being accessible through the respective first and second access cutouts.

Id. col. 8 ll. 23−38. 

Claims 12−14, which are dependent on claim 10, provide specific limitations as to how much the upper opening must be narrowed. Claim 12 provides for “the ratio of 

a distance between the first seal and the second seal to a 

width of the bag proper being less than 97%.” Id. col. 8 

ll. 45−48. Claim 13 provides for “the ratio of a distance 

between the first seal and the second seal to a width of 

the bag proper being greater than 94% but less than 

100%.” Id. col. 8 ll. 49−53. Claim 14 provides for “the 

Case: 16-1200 Document: 48-2 Page: 5 Filed: 10/14/2016
6 POLY-AMERICA, L.P. v. API INDUSTRIES, INC. 

ratio of a distance between the first seal and the second 

seal to a width of the bag proper being between 94% and 

97%, inclusive thereof.” Id. col. 8 ll. 54−58.

C. Prosecution History 

During prosecution, the examiner twice rejected all of 

Poly-America’s claims as being obvious over the combination of two prior art patents—Schneider (U.S. Patent No. 

7,137,737 B2) and Bonke (U.S. Patent No. 5,133,607 A)—

which teach a pull-strip bag with short seals at the upper 

hem and a plastic liner bag with elastic top, respectively. 

J.A. 199−202, 240−46. In Poly-America’s response to the 

second rejection, it distinguished Schneider from all of the

’308 patent’s independent claims on the basis that 

Schneider’s short seals were not extended to reduce the 

bag’s “relaxed upper opening width” in relation to the 

“bag proper width”:

In Schneider, the short seals are merely an extension of the linear side seals with the side seals and 

short seals on each side of the bag parallel to the 

side seals and short seals on the other side of the 

bag. Therefore, because the short seals are a linear extension of the side seals, the distance between the interior edges of the short seals is 

identical to the distance between the interior edges of the side seals. . . . Thus, applying Applicant’s claimed definitions of the terms, the 

“relaxed upper opening width” of Schneider is the 

exact same as the “bag proper width,” not less 

than the “bag proper width” as required by Applicant’s independent claims. 

J.A. 272−73 (emphasis added). The examiner subsequently withdrew his objection and allowed all sixteen claims. 

J.A. 346. The examiner explained that “the prior art fails 

to teach elastic drawstrings welded into the bag hem at 

short seals that form an upper opening that is smaller 

than the width of the bag.” J.A. 282. 

Case: 16-1200 Document: 48-2 Page: 6 Filed: 10/14/2016
POLY-AMERICA, L.P. v. API INDUSTRIES, INC. 7

D. District Court Proceedings

Poly-America sued API Industries, Inc. (“API”) for infringement of claim 10 of the ’308 patent. Among other 

terms, the district court construed the term “short seal” of 

claim 10. Poly-America proposed that “short seal” be 

construed as “a seal that inseparably welds or joins the 

first and second elastic drawstrings and the first and 

second panels of the bag.” J.A. 32. The district court 

instead adopted API’s proposed construction: “A seal for 

securing the elastic drawstring, which seal is located 

adjacent to a side seal, and that is not substantially 

aligned with the side seal, but extends inwardly from the 

interior edge of the side seal.” Id. The district court 

explained that this construction was consistent with the 

specification and the prosecution history. J.A. 2−4. 

Under the district court’s construction of short seal, 

the accused device would not infringe claim 10, because 

API’s accused bags are conventional drawstring trash 

bags with short seals that are substantially aligned with 

the side seal—i.e., the short seals do not extend inwardly, 

so the width of the relaxed upper opening is equal to the 

bag proper width. Following claim construction, PolyAmerica stipulated to non-infringement, and the district 

court entered final judgment in API’s favor. J.A. 7. PolyAmerica appeals the district court’s entry of judgment in 

favor of API. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(1). 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Where the district court’s claim construction relies only on intrinsic evidence, the construction is a legal determination reviewed de novo. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. 

Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 840−42 (2015). A district 

court’s subsidiary fact findings about extrinsic evidence 

are reviewed for clear error. Id. Here, the district court’s 

claim construction did not rely on extrinsic evidence, so

our review is de novo. 

Case: 16-1200 Document: 48-2 Page: 7 Filed: 10/14/2016
8 POLY-AMERICA, L.P. v. API INDUSTRIES, INC. 

III. DISCUSSION

Poly-America argues that in construing the term 

“short seal” to require inward extension, the district court 

erred by importing limitations from embodiments described in the specification, misreading the prosecution 

history, and ignoring principles of claim differentiation. 

We disagree. 

Claim terms are generally given their ordinary and 

customary meaning, which is the meaning they would 

have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of 

the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 

1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We depart from the 

plain and ordinary meaning in only two instances. HillRom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 

(Fed. Cir. 2014). The first is when a patentee acts as his 

own lexicographer. Id. The second is when the patentee 

disavows the full scope of the claim term in the specification or during prosecution. Id. There is no indication or 

assertion of lexicography in this case. The only question 

is whether the inventor disavowed trash bags with short 

seals that do not extend inwardly to narrow the upper 

opening width in relation to the bag proper width. 

Disavowal can be effectuated by language in the specification or the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d 

at 1316−17. In either case, the standard for disavowal is 

exacting, requiring clear and unequivocal evidence that 

the claimed invention includes or does not include a 

particular feature. See Openwave Sys., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 

808 F.3d 509, 513−14 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Omega Eng’g., Inc. 

v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323−26 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

Ambiguous language cannot support disavowal. Omega, 

334 F.3d at 1324; see also Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis 

Elevator Co., 593 F.3d 1275, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

While disavowal must be clear and unequivocal, it 

need not be explicit. Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec 

Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1363−64 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For 

Case: 16-1200 Document: 48-2 Page: 8 Filed: 10/14/2016
POLY-AMERICA, L.P. v. API INDUSTRIES, INC. 9

example, an inventor may disavow claims lacking a 

particular feature when the specification describes “the 

present invention” as having that feature. See e.g., Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., 814 F.3d 

1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, the specification states 

that: “In looking at both FIG. 1 and FIG 2, it is important 

to note that one of the characteristics of the present invention is a reduction in upper width . . . resulting from the 

extended short seals.” ’308 patent col. 6 ll. 11−15 (emphasis added). Directing the reader to figures one and two, 

which demonstrate the extended short seal feature, does 

not limit the import of this clear statement that describes

a characteristic feature of the invention. 

Similarly, an inventor may disavow claims lacking a 

particular feature when the specification distinguishes or 

disparages prior art based on the absence of that feature. 

See Openwave, 808 F.3d at 513−14; SightSound Techs., 

LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 

That is exactly what the specification to the ’308 patent 

does by stating that prior art bags are difficult to secure

over trash receptacle lips and explaining that the use of 

extended short seals reduces the claimed bag’s upper 

opening, making it easy to fit around a trashcan. See ’308 

patent col. 2 ll. 49−51, col. 5 ll. 36−48, col. 6 l. 32−col. 7 

l. 19. 

Poly-America’s reply to the examiner’s second rejection of all claims also contains a clear and unmistakable 

disavowal of short seals that do not extend inwardly: “The 

‘relaxed upper opening width’ of Schneider is the exact 

same as the ‘bag proper width,’ not less than the ‘bag 

proper width’ as required by Applicant’s independent 

claims.” J.A. 273 (emphasis added). Despite PolyAmerica’s contentions, it is irrelevant that the terms “bag 

proper width” and “relaxed upper opening width” are not 

present in claim 10, because when considered in light of 

the specification, it is clear that all of the claimed trash 

bags have a “relaxed upper opening width” and a “bag 

Case: 16-1200 Document: 48-2 Page: 9 Filed: 10/14/2016
10 POLY-AMERICA, L.P. v. API INDUSTRIES, INC. 

proper width.” See ’308 patent col. 6 ll. 11−27. Ultimately, the only meaning that matters in claim construction is 

the meaning in the context of the patent. See Trs. of 

Columbia Univ., 811 F.3d at 1365. 

The district court’s analysis does not involve importing limitations from embodiments described in the specification. Every embodiment described in the specification 

has inwardly extended short seals and every section of the 

specification indicates the importance of inwardly extended short seals. These two facts provide together a proper 

reason to limit the claims in this way. Moreover, even if 

these indications were not themselves sufficient, they, 

when taken together with the statements from the ’308 

patent’s specification and prosecution history identified

above, provide clear and unequivocal evidence that the 

inventor intended to disavow any claim scope encompassing short seals that are not inwardly extended. 

Poly-America argues that requiring the short seals in 

claim 10 to be inwardly extended would render redundant 

dependent claim 13’s provision for “a distance between 

the first seal and the second seal to a width of the bag 

proper being greater than 94% but less than 100%.” ’308 

patent col. 8 ll. 49−53. Construing short seals to require 

inward extension would inherently provide for a distance 

between short seals that is less than 100 percent of the 

bag proper width, but that does not render the more 

specific range provided by dependent claim 13 redundant. 

Poly-America also argues that because other independent and dependent claims explicitly provide for 

reduced upper opening width, claim differentiation principles preclude importing that limitation into claim 10, 

which does not contain such an explicit limitation. But 

claim differentiation does not serve to broaden claims 

beyond their meaning in light of the patent as a whole, 

and it cannot override clear statements of claim scope 

found in the specification and prosecution history. See 

Case: 16-1200 Document: 48-2 Page: 10 Filed: 10/14/2016
POLY-AMERICA, L.P. v. API INDUSTRIES, INC. 11

Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1302 

(Fed. Cir. 1999). 

IV. CONCLUSION 

The ’308 patent clearly and unequivocally disavows 

claims comprising short seals that do not extend inwardly. Therefore, the district court correctly construed the 

terms “short seal” to require inward extension and correctly entered judgment in favor of API. We affirm. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 16-1200 Document: 48-2 Page: 11 Filed: 10/14/2016