Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01718/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01718-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Qualcomm, Inc.
Appellee
R+L Carriers, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

R+L CARRIERS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

QUALCOMM, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2014-1718

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Ohio in No. 1:09-cv-00445-SSB, 

Senior Judge Sandra S. Beckwith.

______________________ 

Decided: September 17, 2015

______________________ 

ANTHONY C. WHITE, Thompson Hine LLP, Columbus, 

OH, and MEGAN DORTENZO, Cleveland, OH, argued for 

plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by ARTHUR P.

LICYGIEWICZ, Cleveland, OH; PHILIP B. SINENENG, Columbus, OH; STEPHEN BUTLER, SR., Cincinnati, OH.

J. DEREK VANDENBURGH, Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh, Lindquist & Schuman, P.A., Minneapolis, MN,

argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by

DOUGLAS J. WILLIAMS; JONATHAN S. FRANKLIN, Norton 

Rose Fulbright US LLP, Washington, DC; RICHARD 

Case: 14-1718 Document: 42-2 Page: 1 Filed: 09/17/2015
2 R+L CARRIERS, INC. v. QUALCOMM, INC. 

STEPHEN ZEMBEK, Houston, TX; SHEILA C. KADURA, 

Austin, TX.

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges.

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.

R+L Carriers, Inc. (“R+L”) brought suit against, inter 

alia, Qualcomm, Inc. (“Qualcomm”), asserting infringement of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,401,078 (“the ’078 

patent”). While the case was pending, R+L filed for ex 

parte reexamination of the ’078 patent. Although the 

patent survived, R+L added language to all of the claims 

at issue. Because the district court determined that the 

new claims were not substantially identical to the initial 

claims of the ’078 patent, and because there was no dispute that Qualcomm ceased its allegedly infringing activity before the reexamination certificate issued, R+L 

stipulated to final judgment, dismissing its infringement 

claim against Qualcomm. R+L appeals the district court’s 

determination that the amendments made during reexamination resulted in a substantive change in claim 

scope. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm, albeit 

on slightly different grounds than those relied upon by the 

district court.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The ’078 Patent

The ’078 patent generally relates to an improved 

method of consolidating freight into trailers to optimize 

delivery efficiencies for the loads in each trailer. According to the ’078 patent, prior art shipping practices would 

evaluate the contents of each incoming trailer by reviewing bills of lading for the packages when they arrived at a 

central terminal. The patent explains that the freight on 

each trailer was then consolidated with freight going in 

Case: 14-1718 Document: 42-2 Page: 2 Filed: 09/17/2015
R+L CARRIERS, INC. v. QUALCOMM, INC. 3

the same direction and hauled away from the central 

terminal. The patent explains that the purpose of consolidation was to deliver all of the freight on time, while 

using the fewest number of trailers to do so. Although 

load planning software at the time could help perform this 

task more efficiently, the patent asserts that the prior art 

software could not account for unscheduled freight that 

was not entered into the computer.

To solve this alleged deficiency in the prior art, the 

’078 patent discloses a system for transmitting the contents of a trailer to the central terminal so that load 

planning can occur while the trailer is en route. The 

system contemplates the scanning of bills of lading, 

transmitting those documents once scanned, and receiving the data where it can be extracted for load planning 

and billing purposes. The patent appears to describe two 

alternative methods for extracting the load planning 

information from the transmission and preparing loading 

manifests therefrom: (1) a computerized system automatically interpreting the data; and (2) a data entry clerk 

manually reviewing the information. The U.S. Patent 

and Trademark Office (“PTO”) initially issued the patent 

on June 4, 2002, containing only one independent claim 

(“original claim 1”).

On June 28, 2013, R+L filed for ex parte reexamination of the ’078 patent based on prior art identified by a 

third party. In the first office action, the PTO rejected 

original claim 1, inter alia, as anticipated by a key prior 

art reference—a publication from the N&M Transfer 

Company that “teaches a method for transferring shipping documentation data for a package from a transporting vehicle to a remote processing center.” Joint 

Appendix (“J.A.”) 2925. To overcome the PTO’s rejection, 

R+L modified original claim 1 as follows: 

1. A method for transferring shipping documentation data for a package from a transporting vehiCase: 14-1718 Document: 42-2 Page: 3 Filed: 09/17/2015
4 R+L CARRIERS, INC. v. QUALCOMM, INC. 

cle to a remote processing center comprising the 

steps of: 

placing a package on the transporting vehicle;

using a portable document scanner to scan an image of the documentation data for the package, 

said image including shipping details of the package; 

providing a portable image processor capable of 

wirelessly transferring the image from the transporting vehicle;

wirelessly sending the image to a remote processing center;

receiving the image at said remote processing center; and

prior to the package being removed from the 

transporting vehicle, utilizing said documentation 

data at said remote processing center to prepare 

[a] an advance loading manifest document for another transporting vehicle which includes said 

package for further transport of the package on 

another transporting vehicle.

’078 Patent Reexamination Certificate col. 2 ll. 1–18 

(deletion in brackets; additions in italics) (“amended claim 

1”). In allowing amended claim 1, the PTO explained that 

the key prior art reference only discussed loading a “manifest for the current shipping vehicle and not an advance 

loading manifest document for another transporting 

vehicle.” J.A. 3088. The PTO issued the reexamination 

certificate on March 21, 2014, with amended claim 1 

replacing original claim 1.

B. Procedural History

R+L filed suit against Qualcomm on June 25, 2009, 

alleging, inter alia, induced infringement of the ’078 

Case: 14-1718 Document: 42-2 Page: 4 Filed: 09/17/2015
R+L CARRIERS, INC. v. QUALCOMM, INC. 5

patent. R+L’s case against Qualcomm was consolidated 

into a multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) in the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In 

re Bill of Lading Transmissions & Processing Sys. Patent 

Litig., MDL Docket No. 1:09-md-2050 (S.D. Ohio). In a 

prior appeal, on June 7, 2012, this court held that R+L’s 

induced infringement claims survived Qualcomm’s motion 

to dismiss. In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323, 1346–47 (Fed. 

Cir. 2012).

We remanded the case against Qualcomm for further 

proceedings. After the PTO issued the reexamination 

certificate on March 21, 2014, the district court sua sponte

ordered all of the parties in the MDL to brief the effect of 

the claim amendments made during reexamination. On 

May 19, 2014, the district court determined that R+L’s 

amendment to original claim 1 substantively narrowed 

the claim, thereby precluding recovery of damages for 

infringement prior to the date the PTO issued the reexamination certificate. The district court agreed with the 

accused infringers in the MDL that, although original 

claim 1 covered both manual and computer-prepared 

loading manifests, amended claim 1 covered only computer-prepared loading manifests. The district court reasoned that the specification of the ’078 patent disclosed 

both manual and computerized extraction of information 

from bills of lading and preparation of loading manifests, 

the language in original claim 1 did not limit methods for 

preparing loading manifests to only computerized systems, and the term “advance” in amended claim 1 was 

added to get around the N&M prior art, which, among 

other things, disclosed manual entry of the loading manifest. For these reasons, the district court concluded that 

amended claim 1 must encompass only the preparation of 

computer-generated loading manifests.

Because Qualcomm sold its allegedly infringing business unit before the PTO issued the reexamination certifiCase: 14-1718 Document: 42-2 Page: 5 Filed: 09/17/2015
6 R+L CARRIERS, INC. v. QUALCOMM, INC. 

cate for the ’078 patent, R+L conceded that it could not 

recover any damages against Qualcomm based on the 

district court’s determination that claim 1 was substantively narrowed during reexamination. Accordingly, R+L 

stipulated to entry of final judgment, dismissing its 

infringement claims against Qualcomm. R+L timely 

appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(1) (2012).

II. DISCUSSION

A patentee of a patent that survives reexamination is 

only entitled to infringement damages for the time period 

between the date of issuance of the original claims and 

the date of issuance of the reexamined claims if the original and the reexamined claims are “substantially identical.” 35 U.S.C. § 252 (2012) (stating that a reissued 

patent shall have the same effect as the original patent 

“in so far as the claims of the original and reissued patents are substantially identical” (emphasis added)); see

35 U.S.C. § 307(b) (stating that “a reexamination proceeding will have the same effect as that specified in section 

252 for reissued patents”); Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 

163 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citing 35 U.S.C. §§ 

252, 307(b)). If, on the other hand, a substantive change 

has been made to the original claims during reexamination, the patentee is entitled to infringement damages

only for the time period following issuance of the reexamination certificate. Bloom Eng’g Co. v. N. Am. Mfg. Co., 

129 F.3d 1247, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Identical’ does not 

mean verbatim, but means at most without substantive 

change.” (emphasis added)). To determine whether substantive changes have been made, we consider “whether 

the scope of the claims are identical, not merely whether 

different words are used.” Laitram, 163 F.3d at 1346; 

Bloom Eng’g, 129 F.3d at 1250.

We have held previously that we review de novo a district court’s conclusion regarding whether the scope of 

Case: 14-1718 Document: 42-2 Page: 6 Filed: 09/17/2015
R+L CARRIERS, INC. v. QUALCOMM, INC. 7

reexamined claims are “substantively identical” to the 

scope of the original claims. Laitram, 163 F.3d at 1346–

47. In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 

135 S. Ct. 831 (2015), however, the Supreme Court held 

that we must review the district court’s resolution of 

subsidiary factual matters during claim construction for 

clear error. Id. at 841–42. Because we are reviewing the 

scope of the reexamined and original claims, this is a 

matter of claim construction. See Laitram, 163 F.3d at 

1346–47 (“This rule flows from the general principle that 

‘the interpretation and construction of patent claims, 

which define the scope of the patentee’s rights under the 

patent, is a matter of law, exclusively for the court.’” 

(quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 

967, 970–71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 

(1996))). Accordingly, we must review the district court’s 

subsidiary factual findings on the scope of the reexamined 

and original claims for clear error, but the ultimate conclusion regarding the scope of the claims de novo. See 

Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 841–42.

It is undisputed that R+L cannot recover damages for 

infringement from Qualcomm unless amended claim 1 is 

“substantially identical” to original claim 1. 35 U.S.C. 

§ 252. Accordingly, this case turns on our review of the 

district court’s determination that amended claim 1 is 

substantively narrower than original claim 1. See Bloom 

Eng’g, 129 F.3d at 1250. Qualcomm argues that it is clear 

that, although original claim 1 encompassed computer 

and manual loading manifests, amended claim 1 is limited to computer-generated loading manifests because, it 

says, that limitation was necessary to overcome the N&M 

reference. R+L argues, to the contrary, that it is clear 

that “loading manifests” in original claim 1 was always 

limited to computer-generated or computer-assisted 

documents and that the only amendment necessary to 

overcome the N&M reference was the clarification that 

the loading manifest must be a document for another

Case: 14-1718 Document: 42-2 Page: 7 Filed: 09/17/2015
8 R+L CARRIERS, INC. v. QUALCOMM, INC. 

transporting vehicle, rather than the current vehicle. 

Thus, R+L contends that the narrowing on which the 

district court relied for its judgment actually never occurred.

As an initial matter, we disagree with both Qualcomm 

and R+L on the primary premises of their arguments. As 

for Qualcomm, we do not agree that claim 1 was substantively narrowed in reexamination because insertion of the 

term “advance” into the claims limited claim 1 to only 

computer-generated loading manifests. Qualcomm reads 

too much into the term “advance,” which, as discussed 

below, was added to the claim for reasons unrelated to the 

format for preparing the loading manifests. Speculation 

about what R+L was attempting to accomplish vis-à-vis 

the N&M reference does not change our view.

Under the statute and our prior case law, it is irrelevant why an amended claim is narrowed during reexamination, or even whether the patentee intended to narrow 

the claim in a particular way. If the scope of the amended 

claim is not “substantially identical” to the scope of the 

original claim—based on a normal claim construction 

analysis—per § 252, that fact affects intervening rights. 

See 35 U.S.C. § 307(b). The fact that the reason for the 

amendment during reexamination might not have been 

for the purpose of narrowing the claim in a particular way 

does not matter. And, the court is not charged with 

assessing why a claim might have been narrowed as a 

predicate to determining whether it has been narrowed. 

Indeed, we explained in the analogous context of considering whether a claim was broadened on reexamination that 

we consider “whether any conceivable process would 

infringe the amended claim, but not infringe the original 

claim.” Predicate Logic, Inc. v. Distributive Software, Inc., 

544 F.3d 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Similarly, in determining whether an amended claim is narrower, we 

determine whether there is any product or process that 

would infringe the original claim, but not infringe the 

Case: 14-1718 Document: 42-2 Page: 8 Filed: 09/17/2015
R+L CARRIERS, INC. v. QUALCOMM, INC. 9

amended claim. See id. The purpose of the amendment is 

irrelevant to this inquiry. We do not agree, accordingly, 

that, simply because it may have made sense to narrow 

claim 1 to exclude manual operations in order to overcome 

the N&M reference, that form of narrowing necessarily

occurred. 

Having said that, we do not agree with R+L that 

“loading manifest” in claim 1 always encompassed only 

manifests generated using load planning software. We 

agree with the district court’s thorough claim construction 

analysis of original claim 1 and its conclusion that the 

term “loading manifest” is broad enough to encompass 

both manual and computer generated documentation. We 

find that, under a proper claim construction analysis, both 

original claim 1 and amended claim 1 are similarly broad

in that respect. Whatever R+L’s reason for adding the 

word “advance” into claim 1, the district court’s conclusion

as to the scope of original claim 1 under traditional claim 

construction principles is not affected. 

That conclusion does not expose Qualcomm to damages for infringement of amended claim 1, however, because 

we find that claim 1 was narrowed in other ways during 

reexamination and is, thus, not substantially identical to 

original claim 1 in the ’078 patent. R+L amended “loading manifest” to claim an “advance loading manifest 

document for another transporting vehicle.” ’078 Patent 

Reexamination Certificate col. 2 ll. 15–16 (additions in 

italics). R+L made this amendment after the PTO rejected original claim 1 over various pieces of prior art, not 

just N&M. The examiner expressly stated he was allowing amended claim 1 because “the manifest discussed by 

[the prior art] is a manifest for the current shipping 

vehicle and not an advance loading manifest document for 

another transporting vehicle.” J.A. 3088. In other words, 

the examiner’s focus in allowing the claims was not on 

whether a computer produced the loading manifest, but 

on the additional limitation that the advance loading 

Case: 14-1718 Document: 42-2 Page: 9 Filed: 09/17/2015
10 R+L CARRIERS, INC. v. QUALCOMM, INC. 

manifest be “for another transporting vehicle.” Id. Although the amendment may not have limited amended 

claim 1 to computer-produced loading manifests, the 

examiner’s commentary reveals a method that would be 

covered by original claim 1 but not amended claim 1: the 

process of preparing a loading manifest “for the current

shipping vehicle.” J.A. 3088. 

R+L’s own argument that “advance” did not alter the 

scope of the claims as it relates to the method for preparing the manifests further supports this conclusion. In its 

briefing, R+L acknowledges that the claims were allowed 

over the prior art because it agreed to add the “for another

transporting vehicle” limitation. Appellant’s Br. 11. As 

R+L stated in its interview summary during reexamination, addition of “loading manifest document for another 

transportation vehicle” resulted in a tentative agreement 

that the amendment would overcome the rejections over 

the prior art. J.A. 3194–95. Even if the word “advance” 

was only added to “provide clarity,” as R+L argues, R+L 

clearly understood that it was limiting the scope of its 

claims in another way to get around the prior art. See

Appellant’s Br. 11; J.A. 3194–95.1 Thus, amended claim 

1 is not “substantially identical” to original claim 1 because original claim 1 encompassed scope that amended 

claim 1 does not. See 35 U.S.C. § 252.

Accordingly, we conclude that amended claim 1 is not 

“substantially identical” to original claim 1. 35 U.S.C. 

§ 252. R+L is, thus, not entitled to infringement damages 

prior to issuance of the reexamination certificate for the 

1 Notably, R+L itself suggested adding the term 

“advance” to further emphasize the “for another transporting vehicle limitation.” Thus, even if the term “advance” did not alter the method for preparing the loading 

manifests covered by claim 1, it does appear that the term 

“advance” assisted in narrowing the claim in other ways.

 

Case: 14-1718 Document: 42-2 Page: 10 Filed: 09/17/2015
R+L CARRIERS, INC. v. QUALCOMM, INC. 

11

’078 patent. Since R+L concedes that Qualcomm did not 

perform any allegedly infringing conduct after the PTO 

issued the reexamination certificate, the district court 

properly entered judgment dismissing the case against 

Qualcomm.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of 

the district court dismissing R+L’s infringement claims 

against Qualcomm.

AFFIRMED

Case: 14-1718 Document: 42-2 Page: 11 Filed: 09/17/2015