Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01845/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01845-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Does
Not party
Imaginal Systematic, LLC
Appellant
Leggett & Platt, Inc.
Appellee
Simmons Bedding Company
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IMAGINAL SYSTEMATIC, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

LEGGETT & PLATT, INC., SIMMONS BEDDING 

COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees

DOES, 1 THROUGH 10 INCLUSIVE,

Defendant

______________________ 

2014-1845

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in No. 2:13-cv-05463-RGKSS, Judge R. Gary Klausner.

______________________ 

Decided: November 10, 2015 

______________________ 

STEVEN MARK HANLE, Stradling Yocca Carlson & 

Rauth, P.C., Newport Beach, CA, argued for plaintiffappellant. 

ERIC SHUMSKY, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,

Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees. Also 

represented by MARC SHAPIRO, New York, NY; MARK S.

PARRIS, JEFFREY LARTER COX, Seattle, WA.

Case: 14-1845 Document: 58-2 Page: 1 Filed: 11/10/2015
2 IMAGINAL SYSTEMATIC, LLC v. LEGGETT & PLATT, INC. 

______________________ 

Before MOORE, SCHALL, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.

This case arises from the second round of patent litigation between the same parties involving the way box 

springs are made. Imaginal Systematic, LLC (“Imaginal”) 

filed suit against Leggett & Platt, Inc. (“L&P”) and Simmons Bedding Company (“Simmons”) alleging that L&P’s 

Redesigned TopOff Automatic Stapling Machine infringes 

U.S. Patent No. 7,222,402 (“the ’402 Patent”), which is 

directed to a process for building box springs. The district 

court granted summary judgment of noninfringement on 

grounds that the accused device does not satisfy one of the 

claimed elements. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND 

L&P designs and manufactures products used in the 

bedding industry. These products include equipment 

used to assemble bedding components, such as the TopOff 

machine, which automatically staples wire grids to wood 

frames to make mattress foundations. Minute Order at 1, 

Imaginal Systematic, LLC v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., No. 

2:13-cv-5463 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2014), ECF No. 195. 

Simmons, which manufactures and sells bedding products, purchased eleven TopOff machines from L&P and 

used them to make bedsets. Id. Simmons’ use of those 

TopOff machines (referred to herein as “the Original 

TopOff Machines”) gave rise to the initial lawsuit between 

these same parties (“the First Lawsuit”). 

Specifically, in October 2010, Imaginal filed suit alleging that L&P and Simmons infringed three of its patents: 

the ’402 Patent at issue in this appeal, U.S. Patent No. 

6,935,546, and U.S. Patent No. 7,467,454. The district 

court in the First Lawsuit granted summary judgment 

that the asserted claims of Imaginal’s patents are not 

Case: 14-1845 Document: 58-2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/10/2015
IMAGINAL SYSTEMATIC, LLC v. LEGGETT & PLATT, INC. 3

invalid and that the Original TopOff Machines infringed. 

The case went to trial, and the jury awarded damages for 

infringement in the amount of $5 million, $3 million of 

which the jury determined should be apportioned to 

Simmons’ infringement. The court entered judgment in 

favor of Imaginal. On appeal, this court affirmed the 

district court’s judgment without opinion. Imaginal 

Systematic, LLC v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 496 F. App’x 997 

(Fed. Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (unpublished). 

Following the First Lawsuit, L&P redesigned the 

TopOff machines to avoid infringement (referred to as 

“the Redesigned TopOff Machines”), and Simmons’ machines were modified accordingly. In July 2013, before 

the redesign was complete, Imaginal filed the suit giving 

rise to this appeal, alleging that L&P and Simmons’ 

continued use of the Original TopOff Machines during the 

redesign period following the judgment in the First Lawsuit infringed Imaginal’s patents. Imaginal subsequently 

alleged that the Redesigned TopOff Machines themselves

infringed the ’402 Patent. As explained below, the ’402 

Patent incorporates by reference an earlier patent—U.S. 

Patent No. 5,904,789 (“the ’789 Patent”)—which is also 

assigned to Imaginal. 

A. The ’789 Patent

The ’789 Patent, which issued in 1999, is directed to 

automatic stapling machines and methods for stapling 

coils to a wood frame. The patent explains that, in conventional assembly, “the manufacturing process is limited 

to the capability of the individual hired to staple the box 

spring to the modules.” ’789 Patent, col. 1, ll. 20-22. The 

invention disclosed in the ’789 Patent “is designed to 

automate the box spring stapling process.” Id. at col. 1, ll.

23-24. 

Relevant to this appeal, the ’789 Patent “includes a 

vision guided stapling apparatus which automatically 

locates the modules on the wood frame and then guides 

Case: 14-1845 Document: 58-2 Page: 3 Filed: 11/10/2015
4 IMAGINAL SYSTEMATIC, LLC v. LEGGETT & PLATT, INC. 

the stapler into proper position to secure the modules to 

the wood frame automatically.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 25-28. 

The patent explains that the apparatus “also includes a 

camera coupled to the support. The camera provides an 

image signal indicative of an actual position of the modules relative to the frame upon relative movement of the 

support and the base.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 49-53. And, the 

apparatus includes “a tool coupled to the support for 

securing each of the modules to the frame using the image 

signal from the camera.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 53-55.

All but one of the thirty-one claims in the ’789 Patent 

require use of a camera. For example, claim 1 requires “a 

camera coupled to the support, the camera providing an 

image signal indicative of an actual position of the modules relative to the frame upon relative movement of the 

support and the base.” Id. at col. 16, ll. 43-46. Although 

the ’789 Patent uses the phrases “vision guided control” 

and “vision guided stapling apparatus,” it does not use or 

define the term at issue here: “vision guidance system.” 

See id. at col. 1, ll. 7-10 (“[T]he present invention relates 

to a stapler apparatus for assembly of a box spring, or the 

like, automatically using a vision guided control.”). 

B. The ’402 Patent 

The ’402 Patent—entitled “Box Spring Stapler Apparatus”—issued in May 2007, and is assigned to Imaginal. 

The patent explains that the invention “relates to a 

fastener apparatus such as, for example, a stapler apparatus for assembly of a box spring or the like, automatically.” ’402 Patent, col. 1, ll. 16-18.

The ’402 Patent incorporates the ’789 Patent by reference as follows: 

U.S. Pat. No. 5,904,789, which is expressly incorporated by reference herein, discloses an apparatus designed to automate the module fastening 

process. The apparatus of the ’789 patent invenCase: 14-1845 Document: 58-2 Page: 4 Filed: 11/10/2015
IMAGINAL SYSTEMATIC, LLC v. LEGGETT & PLATT, INC. 5

tion includes a vision guided fastening apparatus 

which automatically locates the modules on the 

frame and then guides a fastener tool, such as a 

stapler, into proper position to secure the modules 

to the frame automatically. 

Id. at col. 1, ll. 38-44. The ’402 Patent explains that the 

present invention “provides a fastener apparatus which 

does not require the vision guidance system of the ’789 

patent.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 49-51. In particular, “[t]he apparatus of the present invention includes a mechanical 

guide coupled to the stapler or other fastening tool. The 

mechanical guide guides the fastening tool into proper 

alignment with a target during the fastening process.” Id. 

at col. 1, ll. 51-55. 

The claimed invention provides a “mechanical guide 

32 coupled to the tool or stapler head 30. Mechanical 

guide 32 is used to steer the stapler head 30 to a target on 

bottom portion 20 of module 14 without the use of the 

vision guidance system of the ’789 patent.” ’402 Patent, 

col. 3, ll. 42-45. Figure 5 below depicts the downward 

movement of the stapler and mechanical guide: 

Case: 14-1845 Document: 58-2 Page: 5 Filed: 11/10/2015
6 IMAGINAL SYSTEMATIC, LLC v. LEGGETT & PLATT, INC. 

The patent explains that, as the stapler head 30 moves 

downward in the direction of arrow 60, the wings 38 and 

40 “engage the wire and guide the stapler head 30” 

downward. Id. at col. 4, ll. 6-15.

The claims make clear that the method disclosed in 

the ’402 Patent operates without the use of a vision guidance system. Representative claim 1 recites the following: 

A method of forming a portion of a box spring or 

mattress foundation, the method comprising:

[1] providing a base;

[2] locating a wood frame on the base, the wood 

frame including a plurality of spaced apart, generally parallel frame sections;

[3] locating a plurality of modules arranged in a 

plurality of rows on the frame, each row including 

a plurality of modules formed from a continuous

metal wire with each module having a top portion 

spaced apart from the frame, first and second side 

portions extending downwardly from the top portion, and a bottom portion connecting the first and 

second side portions, the bottom portion being positioned on one of the frame sections and the first 

and second side portions of the module being 

spaced apart to define an open access area above 

the bottom portion;

[4] locating a fastening tool above the base;

[5] providing a module alignment device;

[6] moving the module with the module alignment 

device; 

[7] moving the fastening tool without the use of a 

vision guidance system in a direction generally 

perpendicular relative to the base and through the 

Case: 14-1845 Document: 58-2 Page: 6 Filed: 11/10/2015
IMAGINAL SYSTEMATIC, LLC v. LEGGETT & PLATT, INC. 7

open access area of a module until the fastening 

tool is located at a target fastening location; and

[8] securing the bottom portion of the module to 

the frame at the target fastening location with the 

fastening tool.

’402 Patent, col. 5 l. 62-col. 6 l. 21 (numbering added; 

emphasis added). 

C. The Accused Devices

After the First Lawsuit, L&P redesigned the TopOff 

machines by removing the positioning software and 

mechanical devices—called “gripper feet”—that were used 

in the Original TopOff Machines to control alignment. 

Minute Order at 5, Imaginal Systematic, No. 2:13-cv-5463 

(C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2014), ECF No. 195. In their place, 

the Redesigned TopOff Machines use the Cognex System, 

which the district court explained “is a computer system 

that uses an optical sensor to control the movement of 

both a gripper carriage on which a wood frame and one 

grid of modules are placed, and the stapling device.” Id. 

The district court found it undisputed that the 

“Cognex system uses a camera and computer software in 

its operations.” Id. at 9. It also found that the system 

controls the movement of the staplers by “(1) stopping 

their descent if modules are not detected, (2) commanding 

the staplers to continue their downstroke once a module is 

detected, and (3) moving the staplers into a safe position 

if the system detects a misalignment once the stapler has 

already reached a certain proximity to the module.” Id. 

D. Procedural History

As noted, Imaginal filed suit in this case alleging infringement based on L&P and Simmons’ use of the Original TopOff Machines during the redesign period, and later 

asserted infringement based on their use of the Redesigned TopOff Machines. The parties filed cross-motions 

Case: 14-1845 Document: 58-2 Page: 7 Filed: 11/10/2015
8 IMAGINAL SYSTEMATIC, LLC v. LEGGETT & PLATT, INC. 

for summary judgment. For its part, Imaginal moved for 

summary judgment on collateral estoppel grounds, arguing that Simmons was liable for infringement based on its

continued use of the Original TopOff Machines found to 

infringe in the First Lawsuit prior to the redesign. Imaginal also argued that L&P and Simmons were collaterally 

estopped from challenging the reasonable royalty rate 

determined in the First Lawsuit. 

L&P and Simmons moved for claim construction and 

partial summary judgment of noninfringement, arguing

that the Redesigned TopOff Machines do not satisfy two 

claim limitations. First, they argued that, although the 

asserted claims require certain method steps to be performed “without the use of a vision guidance system,” the 

Redesigned TopOff Machines do employ a vision guidance 

system. Second, they argued that the claims require 

“moving the module with the module alignment device,” 

but the redesigned machines do not use a “module alignment device.” 

On September 10, 2014, the district court issued a 

minute order resolving both parties’ motions. Specifically, 

the court: (1) granted in part Imaginal’s motion as to postjudgment infringement by continued use of the Original 

TopOff Machine; and (2) granted L&P and Simmons’ 

motion for summary judgment of noninfringement with 

respect to the Redesigned TopOff Machines. 

At the outset, the district court concluded that L&P 

and Simmons infringed Imaginal’s patents through Simmons’ continued use of the Original TopOff Machines. 

Minute Order at 3, Imaginal Systematic, No. 2:13-cv-5463 

(C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2014), ECF No. 195. The court further found that the infringement was willful. The court 

rejected Imaginal’s attempts to use the royalty rate 

allegedly decided in the First Lawsuit because the jury 

was not asked to disclose the process by which it arrived 

at its damages award. Id. at 5 (finding it “completely 

Case: 14-1845 Document: 58-2 Page: 8 Filed: 11/10/2015
IMAGINAL SYSTEMATIC, LLC v. LEGGETT & PLATT, INC. 9

unknown whether the jury used Imaginal’s proposed 

$0.44 royalty rate, or a different method of calculation, to 

arrive at its result”).

After construing the relevant claim terms, the district 

court determined that the Redesigned TopOff Machines

do not infringe the ’402 Patent. As noted, the asserted 

claims of the ’402 Patent require moving the stapler 

“without the use of a vision guidance system.” Imaginal 

argued that, when it disclaimed use of “a vision guidance 

system,” it was only disclaiming use of “the vision guidance system of the ’789 patent.” Supplemental Memo of 

Points & Authorities at 7, Imaginal Systematic, LLC v. 

Leggett & Platt, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-5463 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 

2014), ECF No. 81. Imaginal proposed that the court 

construe “vision guidance system” to mean a system that 

uses “a camera to adjust the aim of the stapler.” Id. L&P 

and Simmons proposed to construe “vision guidance 

system” to mean “an alignment system that uses a visionbased sensor.” Notice of Motion & Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment at 11, Imaginal Systematic, LLC v. 

Leggett & Platt, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-5463 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 

2014), ECF No. 75-1.

Looking to the ordinary meaning of the words “vision” 

and “guidance” as set forth in dictionary definitions, the 

district court concluded that “vision guidance system” is a

“system that uses a vision or sight based method to control or direct the movement or direction of something.” 

Minute Order at 7, Imaginal Systematic, No. 2:13-cv-5463 

(C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2014), ECF No. 195. The court explained that, although the ’402 Patent “uses the ’789 

patent in its preferred embodiments as a general point of 

reference, it does not express any manifest exclusion or 

restriction as it pertains specifically to the meaning of 

‘vision guidance system.’” Id. 

The “undisputed evidence” of record showed that the 

Cognex system used in the Redesigned TopOff Machines 

Case: 14-1845 Document: 58-2 Page: 9 Filed: 11/10/2015
10 IMAGINAL SYSTEMATIC, LLC v. LEGGETT & PLATT, INC. 

is a “vision guidance system.” Id. at 9. Because Claim 1 

expressly limits the method to one that moves the fastening tool without the use of a vision guidance system, 

the court found that the Redesigned TopOff Machines do

not satisfy element 7 of Claim 1. Id. 

After the district court determined that the Redesigned TopOff Machines were noninfringing, trial was 

scheduled on the only remaining issue: the amount of 

damages owed for Simmons’ continued use of the infringing Original TopOff Machines in the period following the 

final judgment in the First Lawsuit. Rather than proceed 

with the damages trial, however, Imaginal appealed the 

district court’s summary judgment order pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2). The parties subsequently entered 

into a settlement agreement that resolved the question of 

damages with respect to the Original TopOff Machines. 

Accordingly, the only issues in this appeal relate to the 

district court’s claim construction and noninfringement 

finding with respect to the Redesigned TopOff Machines. 

II. DISCUSSION 

Resolution of this appeal turns on the construction of 

the term “vision guidance system” as it is used in the ’402 

Patent. We review de novo the ultimate question of the 

proper construction of patent claims and the evidence 

intrinsic to the patent. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. 

Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015) (“[W]hen 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.”). 

We review the district court’s determination of subsidiary 

facts based on extrinsic evidence for clear error. Id. at 

835, 841.

The district court looked to the ordinary meaning of 

the words “vision” and “guidance” and construed “vision 

Case: 14-1845 Document: 58-2 Page: 10 Filed: 11/10/2015
IMAGINAL SYSTEMATIC, LLC v. LEGGETT & PLATT, INC. 11

guidance system” to mean a “system that uses a vision or 

sight based method to control or direct the movement or 

direction of something.” Minute Order at 7, Imaginal

Systematic, No. 2:13-cv-5463 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2014), 

ECF No. 195. In doing so, the court rejected Imaginal’s 

argument that the term “vision guidance system” should 

be restricted by the ’789 Patent. Id. Because the Cognex 

System “uses a vision-based method to control or direct 

the movement of both the frame/grid and the staplers,” 

the district court found that it is a “vision guidance system,” such that the Redesigned TopOff Machines do not 

infringe the ’402 Patent. Id. at 9. 

On appeal, Imaginal does not challenge the grant of 

summary judgment of noninfringement under the district 

court’s claim construction. Instead, Imaginal argues that 

the district court erred in its construction because it: 

(1) ignored the written description and claim language; 

(2) relied too heavily on general purpose dictionary definitions; and (3) improperly excluded a preferred embodiment. As explained below, Imaginal’s arguments are 

unpersuasive. 

Claim construction begins with the language of the 

claims themselves. Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari 

Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 

2004). 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). 

The claims “must be read in view of the specification, of 

which they are a part.” Id. at 1315 (quoting Markman v. 

Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 

1995) (en banc)). We have said that the specification “is 

always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. 

Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the 

meaning of a disputed term.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Although 

Case: 14-1845 Document: 58-2 Page: 11 Filed: 11/10/2015
12 IMAGINAL SYSTEMATIC, LLC v. LEGGETT & PLATT, INC. 

the claims must be read in light of the specification, we 

have emphasized that it is important to “avoid importing 

limitations from the specification into the claims.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.

As noted, element 7 of Claim 1 requires “moving the 

fastening tool without the use of a vision guidance system

in a direction generally perpendicular relative to the base 

and through the open access area of a module until the 

fastening tool is located at a target fastening location.” 

’402 Patent, col. 6, ll. 15-19 (emphasis added). Nothing in 

the claim language purports to restrict the term “vision 

guidance system” to one particular system. Indeed, the 

claim uses the term generically, referring to “a” vision 

guidance system—meaning one or more—rather than a 

specific system. See Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, 

Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“That ‘a’ or ‘an’ 

can mean ‘one or more’ is best described as a rule, rather 

than merely as a presumption or even a convention.”).1 

Imaginal argues that “the written description of the 

’402 patent manifestly excludes only the vision guidance 

system of the ’789 patent.” Appellant’s Br. 34.2 According 

1 L&P and Simmons argue that Imaginal “confirmed the breadth of the generic term ‘vision guidance 

system’ during reexamination of the ’402 patent, and it 

should be held to those representations.” Appellees’ Br. 

32. There is no evidence that Appellees raised this argument below, and we decline to address it for the first time 

on appeal. 

2 Likewise, at oral argument, counsel for Imaginal 

reiterated that the only vision guidance system purportedly excluded from the ’402 Patent claims is that which is 

used in the ’789 Patent. See Oral Argument at 22:36-

23:00, available at http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/

default.aspx?fl=2014-1845.mp3 (Q: “Is the only vision 

guidance system that you have exempted in that element 

 

Case: 14-1845 Document: 58-2 Page: 12 Filed: 11/10/2015
IMAGINAL SYSTEMATIC, LLC v. LEGGETT & PLATT, INC. 13

to Imaginal, the written description of the ’402 Patent 

specifically defines the meaning of the negative limitation 

“without the use of a vision guidance system” where it 

states that “the present invention provides a fastener 

apparatus which does not require the vision guidance 

system of the ’789 patent.” ’402 Patent, col. 1, ll. 49-51. 

This is not a situation where the patentee acted as its own 

lexicographer, however. See Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. 

MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 677 (Fed. Cir. 2015) 

(“[P]atentees can act as their own lexicographers if they 

‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ 

other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” (quoting 

Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am., LLC, 669 F.3d 

1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Though the patentee could 

have defined “vision guidance system” to mean “the vision 

guidance system of the ’789 Patent,” it did not. 

This court has repeatedly “cautioned against limiting 

the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.” Williamson v. Citrix 

Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346-47 (Fed. Cir. 2015) 

(quoting Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d

1313, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). As the district court recognized, although “the ’402 patent uses the ’789 patent in its 

preferred embodiments as a general point of reference, it 

does not express any manifest exclusion or restriction as 

it pertains specifically to the meaning of ‘vision guidance 

system.’” Minute Order at 7, Imaginal Systematic, No. 

2:13-cv-5463 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2014), ECF No. 195. 

Nothing in the written description of the ’402 Patent 

indicates that the claims should be read to refer only to 

the one in the ’789 Patent? Are you saying ’402 has said 

the only one that can’t be used is exactly the one in the 

’789?” A: “That’s true, but bear in mind that the one in the 

’789 patent . . . [has] general features and there are many 

optional features.”).

 

Case: 14-1845 Document: 58-2 Page: 13 Filed: 11/10/2015
14 IMAGINAL SYSTEMATIC, LLC v. LEGGETT & PLATT, INC. 

the vision guidance system of the ’789 Patent. Indeed, the 

specification of the ’402 Patent recognizes that there are 

different types of vision guidance systems and discusses 

two separate examples. The first is the “vision guidance 

system of the ’789 patent.” ’402 Patent, col. 1, ll. 50-51. 

The ’402 Patent explains that the ’789 patent “includes a 

vision guided fastening apparatus which automatically 

locates the modules on the frame and then guides a 

fastener tool, such as a stapler, into proper position to 

secure the modules to the frame automatically.” ’402 

Patent, col. 1, ll. 40-45. The second example is referred to 

as one that is “less exact in guiding the stapler 30 directly 

to the target as in the ’789 patent.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 51-52. 

As to this embodiment, the ’402 Patent discloses that the 

device can operate with or without a vision guidance 

system:

It is understood that the mechanical guide 32 may 

also be used with a vision guidance system. In 

this embodiment, the vision guidance is less exact 

in guiding the stapler 30 directly to the target as 

in the ’789 patent, but could provide vision guidance to an initial position adjacent each module.

Id. at col. 3, ll. 41-54. Given that the ’402 Patent specifically uses the phrase “vision guidance system” to refer to 

two different systems—that of the ’789 Patent and one 

that provides “less exact” guidance—there is no indication 

that the patentee intended the claims to refer only to a 

system disclosed in the ’789 Patent.

Even if we were to restrict the negative claim limitation (in element 7 of Claim 1) of the ’402 Patent based on 

the disclosure of the ’789 Patent, Imaginal’s proposed 

construction would still be improper. Indeed, the ’789 

Patent is not limited to any one particular “vision guidance system.” Nor does the ’789 Patent even use the term 

“vision guidance system.” And, review of the ’789 Patent 

reveals that it claims different types of vision systems. 

Case: 14-1845 Document: 58-2 Page: 14 Filed: 11/10/2015
IMAGINAL SYSTEMATIC, LLC v. LEGGETT & PLATT, INC. 15

For example, Claim 1 of the ’789 Patent includes a “camera providing an image signal indicative of an actual 

position of the modules,” whereas Claims 17 and 18 use 

two cameras to track the movement of the stapler. ’789 

Patent, col. 16, ll. 43-45, col. 17, ll. 33-42. Given the range 

of vision systems disclosed therein, it is difficult to say 

which particular system Imaginal believes is excluded 

from the ’402 Patent. 

Imaginal submits that the written description of the 

’402 Patent and the ’789 Patent taken together “make 

clear that the excluded ‘vision guidance system’ is one 

that uses a camera to adjust the aim of the fastening tool 

to a target fastening location.” Appellant’s Br. 36 (emphasis in original). But neither patent even uses the 

phrase “adjust the aim.” There is simply no support for 

Imaginal’s attempts to narrow the negative claim limitation so that it disclaims only one particular vision guidance system. The fact remains that the patentee could 

have specifically disclaimed a particular vision guidance 

system disclosed in the ’789 Patent, but did not do so.

Next, Imaginal argues that the district court relied 

too heavily on dictionary definitions. We have said that, 

when construing claim terms, courts can rely on dictionaries “so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict 

any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the 

patent documents.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1322-23 (citation omitted). The ’402 Patent does not expressly define 

“vision guidance system.” To determine the ordinary 

meaning of the words, the district court looked to the 

dictionary definitions of “vision” and “guidance.” Citing 

the same dictionary Imaginal relied upon in its briefing, 

the district court explained that “vision” means “the 

ability to see: sight or eyesight” and “guidance” means 

“the act of directing or controlling the path or course of 

something.” Minute Order at 7, Imaginal Systematic, No. 

2:13-cv-5463 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2014), ECF No. 195. The 

court then looked at definitions of the words “path” and 

Case: 14-1845 Document: 58-2 Page: 15 Filed: 11/10/2015
16 IMAGINAL SYSTEMATIC, LLC v. LEGGETT & PLATT, INC. 

“course”: a “course” is a “path or direction that something 

or someone moves alone,” and a “path” is a “continuous 

series of positions or configurations that can be assumed 

in any motion.” Id. Taking these terms together, the 

court construed “vision guidance system” to mean a 

“system that uses a vision or sight based method to control or direct the movement or direction of something.” Id. 

On appeal, Imaginal argues that the district court’s 

addition of the term “movement” changed the definition of 

“guidance” in a meaningful way. Appellant’s Br. 32-33. 

Imaginal does not explain why the concept of movement is 

misplaced, however, and we find this argument is without 

merit. Imaginal’s objection to use of the term movement 

makes little sense given that the claim term itself speaks 

in terms of motion: “moving the fastening tool without the 

use of a vision guidance system.” ’402 Patent, col. 6, ll. 

15-16 (emphasis added). The specification likewise is 

replete with references to movement and alignment. In 

its briefing to the district court, moreover, Imaginal used 

the term “course” and the concept of movement when 

describing the “vision guidance system” of the ’402 Patent 

as one that “adjusts the aim or course of the device being 

guided to a target.” Supplemental Memo of Points & 

Authorities at 7, Imaginal Systematic, No. 2:13-cv-5463 

(C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2014), ECF No. 81. Accordingly, Imaginal’s objection to the court’s use of the term movement is 

unfounded. 

Finally, Imaginal argues that “the district court’s construction improperly excludes a preferred embodiment 

where vision is used in the module alignment step.” 

Appellant’s Br. 33. According to Imaginal, the court’s 

construction “precludes using a vision system that first 

aligns the modules beneath the staplers, and then controls merely the up and down movement of the staplers 

without guiding them.” Appellant’s Reply Br. 17. We 

disagree. The negative limitation at issue on appeal is in 

element 7 of Claim 1, and disclaims use of a vision guidCase: 14-1845 Document: 58-2 Page: 16 Filed: 11/10/2015
IMAGINAL SYSTEMATIC, LLC v. LEGGETT & PLATT, INC. 17

ance system during the step of “moving the fastening 

tool.” ’402 Patent, col. 6, ll. 15-19. Nothing in the district 

court’s construction with respect to element 7 has any 

effect on the use of a vision guidance system in connection 

with the other claimed elements, as is contemplated in 

the specification. See ’402 Patent, col. 5, ll. 22-26 (“As 

discussed above, vision guidance (generally shown as 

sensor 31 in FIG. 1) may be used to determine that the 

modules are in the standard positions and make sure that 

the tool 30 is initially aligned with the module 14.”). 

We conclude that the district court’s claim construction is consistent with the claim language and specification, and that Imaginal’s attempts to restrict the “vision 

guidance system” in the ’402 Patent to the system disclosed in the ’789 Patent are without merit. Because 

Imaginal does not argue that the Redesigned TopOff 

Machines infringe under the district court’s construction, 

there is no basis to disturb the court’s judgment of noninfringement in favor of L&P and Simmons. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the district court’s claim construction of “vision guidance system,” and affirm the summary judgment of 

noninfringement based thereon. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 14-1845 Document: 58-2 Page: 17 Filed: 11/10/2015