Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01216/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01216-0/pdf.json

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

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PROFOOT, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

MERCK & CO., INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2016-1216

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois in No. 1:11-cv-09004, Judge 

John Z. Lee.

______________________ 

Decided: October 26, 2016

______________________ 

WILLIAM L. NIRO, Niro Law Group, LLC, Chicago, IL, 

argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by 

CHRISTOPHER W. NIRO. 

DANIEL A. BOEHNEN, McDonnell, Boehnen, Hulbert & 

Berghoff, LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for defendantappellee. Also represented by ANTHOULA POMRENING, 

JORDAN JOSEPH PRINGLE. 

______________________ 

Case: 16-1216 Document: 49-2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/26/2016
2 PROFOOT, INC. v. MERCK & CO., INC. 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, TARANTO and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges.

PROST, Chief Judge. 

ProFoot, Inc. (“ProFoot”) appeals from a stipulated 

judgment of noninfringement entered by the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois 

in favor of Merck & Co., Inc. (“Merck”), following claim 

construction of U.S. Patent No. 6,845,568 (“’568 patent”). 

For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

ProFoot is the owner of the ’568 patent, entitled “High 

Performance Foot Bed for Sports Equipment.” The invention is a method for providing custom footwear inserts for

sports that involve symmetrical, side-to-side movement, 

such as skiing, skating, and cycling. ’568 patent col. 1 ll. 

9–12. The inserts “position[] the ankle joint or sub taylor 

[sic] joint in a relaxed position by correcting the pronation[1] of the foot.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 13–15. This reduces 

non-functional tension in the subtalar joint, which “increases the amount of relatedness between the foot and 

ankle joint” and allows the athlete to move side-to-side 

(e.g., shifting weight when making turns down a ski hill) 

with greater agility. Id. at col. 1 ll. 45–50, col. 2 ll. 23–28. 

The ’568 patent touts that its solution is superior to prior 

art solutions, because it determines this “relaxed position” 

while an athlete is standing on one foot, instead of on two. 

Id. at col. 2 ll. 5–7. 

To determine the insert that is best for a particular 

athlete, the patent teaches the use of a special device 

called a “neutralizer.” Id. at abstract, col. 3 ll. 1–15. The 

 

1 Pronation refers to the natural inward rolling of 

the foot that happens as a person walks or runs. ’568 

patent col. 1 ll. 19–20.

Case: 16-1216 Document: 49-2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/26/2016
PROFOOT, INC. v. MERCK & CO., INC. 3

athlete steps on the “neutralizer” one foot at a time, and a 

fitting specialist uses the “neutralizer” to determine what 

angle the foot should be in to place the ankle in a “neutral 

position.” Id. at col. 5 ll. 11–15. The specification explains that “[t]o achieve a neutral position, the operator 

visually examines the tendons by the ankle until they are 

in a relaxed state or are working equally.” Id. at col. 4 ll. 

22–24. It also discloses two different embodiments of the 

“neutralizer,” shown in Figures 1 and 2: 

Case: 16-1216 Document: 49-2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/26/2016
4 PROFOOT, INC. v. MERCK & CO., INC. 

Claims 1 and 3 are asserted. They recite:

1. A method of fitting an individual with right and 

left foot inserts which place the ankles of the individual in a neutral position comprising the steps 

of:

for creating a right foot insert, having the individual place the right foot on a neutralizer while elevating the left foot off of the neutralizer; 

using the neutralizer to determine the angle necessary to place the right ankle in a neutral position; 

providing an insert having an angle which represents the neutral state for the right ankle;

for creating a left foot insert, having the individual place the left foot on a neutralizer while elevating the right foot off of the neutralizer; 

using the neutralizer to determine the angle necessary to place the left ankle in a neutral position; 

and

providing an insert having an angle which represents the neutral state for the left ankle.

. . . . 

3. The method of claim 1 wherein said insert is 

provided to a user by selecting said insert from a 

plurality of predetermined inserts.

’568 patent col. 5 l. 14–col. 6 l. 14 (emphases added).

On June 17, 2015, the district court construed the 

terms “neutralizer” and “neutral position,” as well as four 

others. The district court construed “neutralizer” as “a 

device that has a housing, a protractor, and an angularly 

adjustable plate capable of supporting the foot.” J.A. 10. 

It construed “neutral position” as “a position in which 

Case: 16-1216 Document: 49-2 Page: 4 Filed: 10/26/2016
PROFOOT, INC. v. MERCK & CO., INC. 5

subtalar joint is in the relaxed position due to the lack of 

pronation or supination.” J.A. 12. 

Based on the district court’s constructions, the parties 

stipulated to a judgment of noninfringement of all of the 

asserted claims of the ’568 patent. The district court 

entered final judgments under Rule 54(b) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

ProFoot now appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

DISCUSSION

A claim term’s ultimate construction is a question of 

law reviewed de novo, while underlying factual determinations are reviewed for clear error. Teva Pharm. USA, 

Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831, 842 (2015). “When the 

district court reviews only evidence intrinsic to the patent 

(the patent claims and specifications, 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.” 

Id. at 841.

ProFoot challenges the district court’s construction of 

two claim terms: (1) “neutralizer,” and (2) “neutral position.” The parties agree that, under the district court’s 

construction of “neutralizer” alone, Merck does not infringe the ’568 patent. Oral Argument at 1:30–2:01, 

23:55–24:26, available at http://oralarguments.cafc.

uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=2016-1216.mp3. Because we 

agree that the district court correctly construed this term,

we do not reach “neutral position.” 

With respect to “neutralizer,” ProFoot argues that the 

district court erred by naming specific components that 

comprise the neutralizer (e.g., a housing, a protractor, and 

an angularly adjustable plate capable of supporting the 

foot) in its construction. In ProFoot’s view, this construction is too narrow because the claims are silent as to what 

Case: 16-1216 Document: 49-2 Page: 5 Filed: 10/26/2016
6 PROFOOT, INC. v. MERCK & CO., INC. 

components comprise the neutralizer, and a person of 

ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a “neutralizer” is simply just some kind of measuring device. 

ProFoot posits that the district court relied too heavily on 

the ’568 patent’s specification and also the prosecution 

history from the parent to the ’568 patent, U.S. Patent 

No. 6,564,465 (“the parent ’465 patent”), neither of which 

it contends are controlling. We address each in turn.

The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the meaning that 

the term 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). Claim 

terms “do not stand alone,” but “must be read in view of 

the specification, of which they are a part.” Id. at 1315 

(citation omitted). The specification is “highly relevant” 

and often “the single best guide to the meaning of a 

disputed term.” Id. (citation omitted). In addition, “the 

prosecution history can often inform the meaning of the 

claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention.” Id. at 1317. Accordingly, “the 

only meaning that matters in claim construction is the 

meaning in the context of the patent.” Trs. of Columbia 

Univ. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 

2016).

Although ProFoot is correct that the asserted claims 

do not recite the specific components that comprise the 

neutralizer, we agree with the district court that, when 

read in the context of the ’568 patent, this term requires a 

device that includes these components. We begin with the 

claims themselves, as “the context in which a term is used 

in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Phillips

415 F.3d at 1314. Here, the claims state that the neutralizer is something that the athlete steps on, one foot at a 

time, see id. at col. 5 ll. 11–13, col. 6 ll. 3–5, and is “us[ed] 

. . . to determine the angle necessary to place the 

[left/right] ankle in a neutral position,” id. at col. 5 ll. 14–

Case: 16-1216 Document: 49-2 Page: 6 Filed: 10/26/2016
PROFOOT, INC. v. MERCK & CO., INC. 7

15, col. 6 ll. 6–7. It would be hard to imagine how this 

could be accomplished without something for the athlete 

to step on—such as an angularly adjustable plate capable 

of supporting the foot—and something to measure an 

angle—such as a protractor. Although this language, by 

itself, is not strong enough to require these components, it 

at least supports the district court’s construction.

The specification, however, closes this gap. “[W]hen a 

patent ‘repeatedly and consistently’ characterizes a claim 

term in a particular way, it is proper to construe the claim 

term in accordance with that characterization.” GPNE 

Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016) 

(citing VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 

1318 (Fed. Cir. 2014); ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., 

Inc., 558 F.3d 1368, 1374–75 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Here, the 

specification discloses only two embodiments of the neutralizer. ’568 patent col. 3 ll. 1–15. Both name all the 

components listed in the district court’s construction:

The present invention includes a number of components such as a foot neutralizer 10 as shown in 

FIG. 1 . . . . Neutralizer 10 includes a housing 12, 

protractor 14, an angularly adjustable plate 16, 

crank 18 with threaded rod 19 having threads 23 

that coact with threads 21 on support 22, and rod 

24. Bearings 11A, 11B, 11C and 11D may also be 

provided for ease of operation.

FIG. 2 shows an alternate embodiment of a foot 

neutralizer 100. It includes a housing 102, angularly adjustable plate 104, foot rests 106 and 108, 

upright support bar 110, and a positionable horizontal bar 112 that adjustably slides along bar 

114 of support 110. Also included is protractor

116.

Id. (emphases added). In addition, the abstract states 

that “[t]he neutralizer has a housing, protractor, and an 

angularly adjustable plate capable of supporting the foot.” 

Case: 16-1216 Document: 49-2 Page: 7 Filed: 10/26/2016
8 PROFOOT, INC. v. MERCK & CO., INC. 

Id. at abstract (emphasis added). At no point does the 

patent describe an embodiment of a neutralizer that does 

not have these components, nor does it give any indication 

that it contemplates a neutralizer that would not have 

these components. Rather, inclusion of these components 

is consistent with the specification’s description of how 

the neutralizer is used: the athlete stands on the device 

(e.g., through the angularly adjustable plate, encased in

or sitting on top of a housing) and the fitting specialist 

uses it to determine the angle that would place the foot in 

a “neutral position” (e.g., using a protractor). See id. at

col. 4 ll. 7–9, 40–42, 50–59; see also col. 5 ll. 11–15, col. 6 

ll. 3–7. Accordingly, because the specification consistently 

and repeatedly discloses that the neutralizer includes the 

housing, protractor, and angularly adjustable plate components, the district court did not err in including them in 

its construction.

Finally, the prosecution history of the parent ’465 patent supports the district court’s construction. Originally, 

when the application for the parent ’465 patent was filed, 

it contained a single claim for “[a] method for creating a 

pair of foot inserts” that recited a process similar to that 

claimed in claim 1 of the ’568 patent, but did not recite 

any specific device or mechanism that was used to perform this process. J.A. 100. However, through a series of 

amendments seeking to overcome prior art rejections, this 

claim was eventually cancelled and replaced with a claim 

that recited a substantially similar process but also 

specifically required “a neutralizer . . . said neutralizer 

having a housing, protractor, an angularly adjustable 

plate capable of supporting a foot” to perform the claimed 

process. J.A. 147. Although this history arose during 

prosecution of the parent ’465 patent, it is still relevant 

here as evidence of the inventor’s understanding of “neuCase: 16-1216 Document: 49-2 Page: 8 Filed: 10/26/2016
PROFOOT, INC. v. MERCK & CO., INC. 9

tralizer” at the time.2 See Phillips 415 F.3d at 1317 

(“[T]he prosecution history can often inform the meaning 

of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor 

understood the invention.”); cf. Ormco Corp. v. Align 

Tech., Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“When 

the application of prosecution disclaimer involves statements from prosecution of a familial patent relating to the 

same subject matter as the claim language at issue in the 

patent being construed, those statements in the familial 

application are relevant in construing the claims at 

issue.”). The specifications and the claims of the parent 

’465 patent and the ’568 patent are substantially similar, 

and nowhere in the ’568 patent does the inventor indicate 

that he intended the “neutralizer” of the ’568 patent to be 

different from the “neutralizer” in the parent ’465 patent. 

Accordingly, the prosecution history of the parent ’465 

patent also supports the district court’s inclusion of the 

 

2 In addition, we have recognized that prosecution 

history disclaimer in a parent application may bind 

continuation or continuation-in-part applications, if they 

involve the same claim limitation. Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. 

Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“As 

long as the same claim limitation is at issue, prosecution 

disclaimer made on the same limitation in an ancestor 

application will attach.”). This is not the case here because, even though both claim 1 of the parent ’465 patent 

and claim 1 of the ’568 patent include the term “neutralizer,” only claim 1 of the parent ’465 patent contains the 

limitation “said neutralizer having a housing, protractor, 

an angularly adjustable plate capable of supporting a 

foot.” To the extent there is prosecution history disclaimer in the parent ’465 patent (a question we decline to 

answer), only this limitation would disclaim all neutralizers that do not contain these three components, so this 

disclaimer cannot be inherited by the ’568 patent.

Case: 16-1216 Document: 49-2 Page: 9 Filed: 10/26/2016
10 PROFOOT, INC. v. MERCK & CO., INC. 

housing, protractor, and angularly adjustable plate components within the meaning of “neutralizer.”

ProFoot nevertheless contends that the prosecution 

history does suggest that the “neutralizer” of the ’568 

patent was intended to be different from the “neutralizer” 

in the parent ’465 patent because claim 1 of the parent 

’465 patent recites “said neutralizer having a housing, 

protractor, an angularly adjustable plate capable of 

supporting a foot” but claim 1 of the ’568 patent does not. 

This argument turns the correct analysis on its head. 

Here, the prosecution history merely stands as supporting 

evidence that, starting with the parent ’465 patent, the 

inventor understood “neutralizer” to include the housing, 

protractor, and angularly adjustable plate components. 

The omission of these limitations in the ’568 patent is not 

inconsistent with this; instead, the overwhelming similarities between the parent ’465 patent and the ’568 patent 

suggest that the inventor intended “neutralizer” to have 

the same meaning between the two patents. If he had 

not, he could have said so explicitly, or revised the ’568 

patent to include other, broader embodiments of the

neutralizer. Accordingly, when read in combination with 

the rest of the intrinsic evidence, the prosecution history 

supports, rather than refutes, the district court’s construction.

We also do not find any of the other arguments that 

ProFoot advances in support of its position persuasive. 

For example, ProFoot argues that a person of ordinary 

skill in the art would recognize that a “neutralizer” is 

simply just some kind of measuring device, pointing to an 

asserted prior art reference, U.S. Patent No. 5,979,067 to 

Waters (“Waters”), for support. However, Waters does not 

contain the word “neutralizer,” see J.A. 593–602, which 

appears to be a term coined by the inventor of the ’568 

patent. Moreover, this is extrinsic evidence, which is “less 

significant than the intrinsic record in determining the 

‘legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 

Case: 16-1216 Document: 49-2 Page: 10 Filed: 10/26/2016
PROFOOT, INC. v. MERCK & CO., INC. 11

415 F.3d at 1317 (citations omitted). Accordingly, in light 

of the compelling intrinsic record supporting the district 

court’s construction, this does not compel a different 

result.

CONCLUSION

The district court did not err in construing the term 

“neutralizer.” We need not reach “neutral position” 

because, under the district court’s construction of “neutralizer,” Merck does not infringe. Oral Argument at 

1:30–2:01, 23:55–24:26. We therefore affirm the district 

court’s stipulated judgment of noninfringement.

AFFIRMED

Case: 16-1216 Document: 49-2 Page: 11 Filed: 10/26/2016