Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01825/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01825-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Coca-Cola Company
Appellee
Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ROTHSCHILD CONNECTED DEVICES 

INNOVATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

COCA-COLA COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2019-1825

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Georgia in No. 1:16-cv-01241-TWT, 

Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.

______________________

Decided: May 18, 2020

______________________

JOHN C. CAREY, Carey, Rodriguez, Greenberg & Paul, 

LLP, Miami, FL, argued for plaintiff-appellant. 

 ALAN SHANE NICHOLS, Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA, 

argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by ANA 

(NAH EUN) KIM. 

 ______________________

Case: 19-1825 Document: 51 Page: 1 Filed: 05/18/2020
2 ROTHSCHILD CONNECTED DEVICES v. COCA-COLA COMPANY

Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK and O’MALLEY, Circuit 

Judges.

PROST, Chief Judge.

Rothschild Connected Devices Innovation, LLC 

(“RCDI”) sued Coca-Cola Company (“Coca-Cola”), alleging 

that Coca-Cola’s Freestyle beverage dispensers infringe independent claim 11, and various claims depending on claim 

11, of U.S. Patent No. 8,417,377 (“the ’377 patent”). After 

construing relevant claim limitations, the district court 

granted Coca-Cola’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. More specifically, the district court concluded that the Freestyle dispensers did not have the 

claimed “user interface module.” See ’377 patent claim 11. 

The district court also dismissed the case as to the asserted 

dependent claims by virtue of its “inherent authority to 

manage the affairs of its cases.” Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 389 F. Supp. 3d 

1169, 1178–79 (N.D. Ga. 2019) (“Summary Judgment 

Opinion”). 

RCDI appealed. For the reasons below, we vacate and 

remand for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

I

The Freestyle is a line of beverage dispensers by CocaCola. Users can employ the dispenser’s touchscreen (part 

of the “Blister” interface) to scroll through and select various drink choices. Users can also interact with the dispenser via the Freestyle phone application (“the Freestyle 

app”). With the Freestyle app, users can connect to the relevant servers to register their identities and customized 

beverage preferences (e.g., equal mix of Coca-Cola and 

Sprite). Then, users can approach a Freestyle dispenser 

and scan, with their phone in conjunction with the Freestyle app, a QR code displayed by the Blister touchscreen. 

This scan prompts the Freestyle app to connect to the 

Case: 19-1825 Document: 51 Page: 2 Filed: 05/18/2020
ROTHSCHILD CONNECTED DEVICES v. COCA-COLA COMPANY 3

relevant servers to retrieve the user’s preferred beverages

for dispensing. 

II

RCDI owns the ’377 patent, which relates in relevant 

part to a beverage dispenser that can receive a user’s identity and, on the basis of previously stored beverage preferences for that user, dispense the user’s preferred beverage. 

Claim 11, the asserted independent claim, recites:

11. A beverage dispenser comprising:

at least one compartment containing an element of 

a beverage; 

at least one valve coupling the at least one compartment to a dispensing section configured to dispense the beverage; 

a mixing chamber for mixing the beverage;

a user interface module configured to receive an[] 

identity of a user and an identifier of the beverage; 

a communications module configured to transmit 

the identity of the user and the identifier of the beverage to a server over a network, receive user generated beverage product preferences based on the 

identity of the user and the identifier of the beverage from the server and communicat[e] the user 

generated beverage product preferences to the controller; and

the controller coupled to the communication module and configured to actuate the at least one valve 

to control an amount of the element to be dispensed 

and to actuate the mixing chamber based on the 

user generated beverage product preferences.

’377 patent claim 11 (emphasis added).

Case: 19-1825 Document: 51 Page: 3 Filed: 05/18/2020
4 ROTHSCHILD CONNECTED DEVICES v. COCA-COLA COMPANY

III

RCDI sued Coca-Cola, alleging that Coca-Cola’s Freestyle dispensers infringe claim 11 and various dependent 

claims of the ’377 patent. The district court construed 

“user interface module” as “a component of the beverage 

dispenser that enables direct communication between a 

user and the dispenser.” Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 16-1241, 2017 WL 

5410867, at *5 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 13, 2017) (“Markman Opinion”). 

RCDI contended that the claim term should be construed as “a component that enables communication between a user and a dispenser.” J.A. 458. The district court 

disagreed. The court noted that, unlike RCDI’s proposed 

construction, the court’s construction requires the user interface module to physically be a component of the beverage dispenser.” Id.

The court explained that “[a] beverage dispenser ‘comprising’ parts such as a mixing chamber, valves, and a user 

interface module is most naturally read to physically be 

made up of these different parts.” Id. Moreover, the court 

reasoned, “the components of the system that are not physically part of the dispenser, such as the network and the 

server, are not described by the claim to be parts that ‘comprise’ the beverage dispenser. Instead, they are described 

in relation to the parts that are physically comprising the 

beverage dispenser.” Id.; see also Summary Judgment 

Opinion, at 1182 n.96 (explaining that “[a] component that 

is not inside of the casing of the dispenser, but nonetheless 

sits immediately outside of the dispenser and is connected 

by tubing—such as the bag-in-a-box carton of high fructose 

corn syrup—could reasonably be considered a physical 

component of the apparatus”). RCDI further argued that 

the word “direct” should not be included in the construction, but the district court disagreed, again noting that the 

Case: 19-1825 Document: 51 Page: 4 Filed: 05/18/2020
ROTHSCHILD CONNECTED DEVICES v. COCA-COLA COMPANY 5

user interface module must physically be part of the dispenser. Id.

Coca-Cola subsequently moved for summary judgment 

of noninfringement, which the district court granted. Summary Judgment Opinion, at 1172. This motion turned on 

claim 11’s limitation that the dispenser comprise “a user 

interface module configured to receive an[] identity of a 

user and an identifier of the beverage.” In RCDI’s view, 

although a user might not be able to communicate his or 

her identity and beverage preferences to the dispenser via 

the Blister touchscreen, the Freestyle dispenser meets the

claim limitation because the Blister’s controller nevertheless receives that information. More specifically, the user’s 

phone initiates a process in which such information is sent 

to, among other components, the Blister interface’s controller. Therefore, in RCDI’s view, the Blister interface is configured to receive that information (albeit not via a user’s 

interaction with the Blister interface itself), which is all 

that’s required by claim 11.

The district court disagreed with RCDI and explained:

The “user interface module” requirement is not satisfied by any component that enables direct communication between the user and the dispenser. 

Instead, the direct communication must include 

the user’s identity and the beverage identifiers. 

This is because the claim describes the module as 

configured to receive an identity of a user and an 

identifier of the beverage.

Id. at 1189. In the district court’s view, RCDI’s infringement theory—that “a user can communicate with the dispenser via the internet by using the Freestyle app on a 

cellular phone”—involved indirect communication. Id. at 

1190. As an initial matter, although “physically touching 

the [Blister] touchscreen interface is undoubtedly a form of 

‘direct communication,’” the court concluded that RCDI 

“has not provided evidence that the Freestyle Dispenser 

Case: 19-1825 Document: 51 Page: 5 Filed: 05/18/2020
6 ROTHSCHILD CONNECTED DEVICES v. COCA-COLA COMPANY

permits a user to provide his or her identity and beverage 

identifiers via the Blister touchscreen.” Id. (emphasis 

added). Rather, the evidence established only “that a user 

can use the [Blister] touchscreen to choose a drink from a 

pre-selected list of beverage options.” Id. Furthermore, the 

district court explained: 

The specification describes several ways that a 

user would directly communicate his or her identity to the user interface module, which is physically part of the dispenser. This identity can be 

communicated, for example, by an RFID card, on a 

magnetic swipe card, or by a code that is wirelessly 

transferred from a cellular phone or mobile device 

when such a device ‘is within range of the dispenser.’ [’377 patent col. 7 ll. 31–38 (emphasis 

added).] It then explains that communications 

may be in the form of a keyboard, magnetic reader, 

voice recognition, WiFi communication, RFID communication, Bluetooth, or any other type of communication that may in the future be practiced. 

However, given the previous descriptions of the 

user interface module, it becomes clear that these 

are direct communications with the dispenser, and 

not communications over the Internet, cellular network, or some other network. Thus, a user could 

use Bluetooth technology to communicate directly 

with the dispenser, or a local WiFi network to communicate directly with it. However, communications over the cellular network to a server would 

not be direct.

Id. at 1192. 

Turning to the dependent claims, the court exercised 

its “inherent authority to manage the affairs of its cases” to 

“preclude [RCDI] from asserting any of the dependent 

claims,” due to RCDI’s “consistent refusal to identify the 

dependent claims that it would assert.” Id. at 1178–79. 

Case: 19-1825 Document: 51 Page: 6 Filed: 05/18/2020
ROTHSCHILD CONNECTED DEVICES v. COCA-COLA COMPANY 7

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

§ 1295(a)(1).

DISCUSSION

On appeal, RCDI argues that the district court erred in 

granting summary judgment of noninfringement. RCDI 

contends that the district court erroneously construed the 

term “a user interface module” and that, under the proper 

construction, the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement should be vacated. RCDI also argues that the district court abused its discretion in 

exercising its “inherent authority to manage the affairs of 

its cases” to grant Coca-Cola summary judgment of noninfringement as to the asserted dependent claims.

We discuss these issues in turn. 

I

“The proper construction of a patent’s claims is an issue 

of Federal Circuit law.” Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 

663 F.3d 1221, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Where, like here, “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,” which we review

de novo. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 

318, 331 (2015).

Claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and 

customary meaning,” i.e., “the meaning that the term 

would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 

415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted). “[T]he claims themselves 

provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Id. at 1314. “[T]he person of ordinary 

skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in 

the context of the particular claim in which the disputed 

term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, 

Case: 19-1825 Document: 51 Page: 7 Filed: 05/18/2020
8 ROTHSCHILD CONNECTED DEVICES v. COCA-COLA COMPANY

including the specification.” Id. at 1313. Although claim 

terms are interpreted in the context of the entire patent, it 

is improper to import limitations from the specification into 

the claims. Id. at 1323. “[T]he line between construing 

terms and importing limitations can be discerned with reasonable certainty and predictability if the court’s focus remains on understanding how a person of ordinary skill in 

the art would understand the claim terms.” Id. 

The district court construed “user interface module” to 

mean “a component of the beverage dispenser that enables 

direct communication between a user and the dispenser.” 

Markman Opinion, at *5. Coca-Cola defends this construction on appeal. RCDI asks us to instead construe the term

to mean “a component that enables communication between a user and a dispenser.” We disagree with both constructions and construe “user interface module” to mean “a 

component the user interacts with to communicate with 

the dispenser.” 

RCDI’s proposed construction reads out the term “interface” in “user interface module.” Indeed, almost any 

component—for example, a processor, or even a power 

cord—can in its own way help to enable communication between a user and a dispenser. But processors and power 

cords are not interfaces. Our interpretation gives proper 

meaning to the term interface by requiring the user interface module to be a component that the user interacts with

to effectuate communication with the dispenser, not merely 

a component that enables such communication.1

1 We note that, in its briefing, RCDI appears to admit that a proper construction of “user interface module”

would be “any interface the user interacts with to communicate with the dispenser.” See Appellant’s Reply 13–

14.

Case: 19-1825 Document: 51 Page: 8 Filed: 05/18/2020
ROTHSCHILD CONNECTED DEVICES v. COCA-COLA COMPANY 9

Our claim construction is supported by the specification, which explains that the “user interface module” facilitates “communication between the user and the dispenser” 

via components the user must interact with to convey information. ’377 patent col. 6 l. 64–col. 7 l. 4; see also id. col. 

7 ll. 4–7 (explaining that the user interface module “include[s] a display screen” that facilitates interaction with 

the user by “relay[ing] messages”). Although the specification broadly defines the types of communication technologies the user interface module can exploit, see, e.g., id. at 

col. 7 ll. 43–49, this does not negate the requirement that 

the user interface module be a component the user interacts with to communicate with the dispenser. 

In addition to rejecting RCDI’s proposed construction, 

we also reject the district court’s claim construction. We 

address each of the relevant differences between our construction and the district court’s in turn. 

A

RCDI argues that the district court erred in requiring 

that the user interface module physically be part of the dispenser. We agree. 

Claim 11 recites a beverage dispenser “comprising” a 

number of components, including “a user interface module.” Claim 11 does not, however, recite how the user interface module is connected to the additional components 

of the dispenser, much less that the user interface module 

must be physically connected to any or all of these additional components. 

As discussed previously, the district court inferred a 

physical connection between the components “comprising” 

the claimed dispenser (e.g., the “user interface module,” the 

“communications module,” and the “mixing chamber”) by 

comparing those components to the ones that interact with 

the dispenser (e.g., the “server” and the “network”). But in 

general, a patent claim reciting an apparatus “comprising” 

Case: 19-1825 Document: 51 Page: 9 Filed: 05/18/2020
10 ROTHSCHILD CONNECTED DEVICES v. COCA-COLA COMPANY

various components merely means that the apparatus “includ[es] but is not limited to” those components. See CIAS, 

Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. 

Cir. 2007); see also Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, 

Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 811 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Ga.-Pac. Corp. v. 

U.S. Gypsum Co., 195 F.3d 1322, 1327–28 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 

Importantly, such language, standing alone, does not generally specify how the claimed components are connected. 

And in this case, although claim 11 further recites that the 

beverage dispenser’s communication module communicates with a server over a network, that limitation says 

nothing about how the dispenser’s “user interface module”

connects to the additional components of the beverage dispenser. 

Accordingly, the district court erred in concluding that 

the claimed user interface module must be physically part 

of the dispenser.

B

RCDI also contends that, in construing “user interface 

module” to require enabling direct communication between 

the user and the dispenser, the district court erroneously 

limited the types of communication technologies that fall 

under the scope of claim 11. The district court provided 

little explanation in its Markman opinion and order as to 

the precise meaning of “direct communication” in the 

adopted construction. See Markman Opinion, at *5. In its 

Summary Judgment opinion and order, however, the district court made clear that, for user interface modules with 

touch screens, “physically touching” the touchscreen interface is a form of direct communication. Summary Judgment Opinion, at 1189. A user could also use “Bluetooth 

technology to communicate directly with the dispenser, or 

a local WiFi network to communicate directly with it.” Id. 

at 1192. However, communications “over a cellular network to the dispenser are [not] ‘direct.’” Id. at 1190. In 

essence, the district court appears to have interpreted 

Case: 19-1825 Document: 51 Page: 10 Filed: 05/18/2020
ROTHSCHILD CONNECTED DEVICES v. COCA-COLA COMPANY 11

claim 11 to require the user interface module to enable 

communication between a user and the dispenser via communication technologies that operate at close range. See 

also id. at 1192 (highlighting the specification’s statement 

that the user interface module can enable communications 

via the user’s mobile device when “such a device ‘is within 

range of the dispenser.’” (quoting ’377 patent col. 7 ll. 31–

38 (emphasis added by district court)). Moreover, the district court appears to have further limited the types of permissible communications to those that follow a particular 

path and sequence. See, e.g., Summary Judgment Opinion, 

at 1191–92. 

RCDI argues that these aspects of the district court’s 

claim construction are erroneous because claim 11 is not 

limited to communication technologies that operate at 

short distances or via a particular path. Appellant’s Br. 25. 

We agree. 

Claim 11 recites “a user interface module configured to 

receive an[] identity of a user and an identifier of the beverage.” Claim 11 does not include any language regarding 

the permissible communication technologies or paths the 

user interface module can employ to enable communication 

between the user and the dispenser, much less any language differentiating between the user’s pressing a 

touchscreen, transmitting the information over Bluetooth, 

or transmitting the information over a cellular network. 

Our interpretation of claim 11 is bolstered by the specification, which broadly states that “[t]he user interface module 

416 will enable communications between the user and dispenser via . . . any . . . type of communication now known 

or practiced in the future that will allow the user to identify 

themselves and/or input information to the beverage dispenser. ’377 patent col. 6 l. 64–col. 7 l. 4 (emphasis added). 

Accordingly, although the “user interface module” must be 

a component that a user interacts with to communicate 

with the dispenser, neither the ’377 patent’s claims nor its 

Case: 19-1825 Document: 51 Page: 11 Filed: 05/18/2020
12 ROTHSCHILD CONNECTED DEVICES v. COCA-COLA COMPANY

specification limit such interaction to specific wireless communication technologies or paths.

C

RCDI further argues that the district court erred in

concluding that the “direct communication between the 

user and the dispenser . . . must include the user’s identity 

and the beverage identifiers.” See Summary Judgment 

Opinion, at 1189; Appellant’s Br. 32–36; Appellant’s Reply 

2. We agree.

As explained previously, claim 11 does not require the 

user interface module to enable “direct communication” between the user and the dispenser, at least as defined by the 

district court. Claim 11 does require that the user be able 

to interact with the user interface module to communicate 

with the dispenser. Indeed, the primary purpose of the 

user interface module is to facilitate the communication of 

information between the user and the device. See, e.g., ’377 

patent col. 6 l. 64–col. 7 l. 4 (“The user interface module 416 

will enable communications between the user and dispenser . . . .”). Claim 11 merely recites an example of such 

information. Although user interfaces must invariably be 

configured to receive information via a user’s interaction 

with the interface—indeed, that’s what makes a component an interface for users—here this communication is not 

restricted in the manner in which it occurs, and may come 

from various alternative routes, including through other 

modules. See, e.g., id. col. 6 l. 65–col. 7 l. 4 (stating that 

such communications can be “via . . . any . . . type of communication now known or practiced in the future that will 

allow the user to identify themselves and/or input information to the beverage dispenser”); id. col. 7 ll. 32–37 (“In 

one embodiment, the identity code may be transferred to 

the user’s computer where the user may download the code 

to a mobile device,” which “will wirelessly transfer the code 

to the user interface module 416 and/or the communication 

module 414 . . . .”). Nor does claim 11 require that such 

Case: 19-1825 Document: 51 Page: 12 Filed: 05/18/2020
ROTHSCHILD CONNECTED DEVICES v. COCA-COLA COMPANY 13

communication actually occurs. All the claim requires is 

that the user interface module be “configured to” receive 

the user and beverage identifiers. 

II

RCDI argues that the district court abused its discretion in exercising its inherent authority to dismiss the case 

as to the dependent claims. We agree.

The district court’s analysis rests on a faulty premise: 

that RCDI consistently refused to identify the dependent 

claims it was asserting. In fact, on March 17, 2016—fewer 

than five months into the case and before the case was 

transferred from the Southern District of Florida to the 

Northern District of Georgia—RCDI disclosed the asserted 

dependent claims in its proposed amended complaint. J.A. 

356; see also J.A. 348–58; J.A. 131–44. Although this motion was not ruled on for many months, that delay was 

through no fault of RCDI. Indeed, on October 2016, after 

the case was transferred to the Northern District of Georgia, RCDI moved for a new schedule and status conference; 

in this motion, RCDI notified the court of RCDI’s pending 

motion to amend the complaint and stated that “the proposed First Amended Complaint . . . specifically identifies 

the asserted dependent claims of the ’377 patent.” J.A. 725. 

Subsequently, in response to Coca-Cola’s interrogatory requesting identification of the asserted claims, RCDI referred to its identification of the asserted claims in the 

proposed amended complaint. J.A. 3920–22. Furthermore, 

in email correspondence in early 2018, RCDI yet again reiterated that it was only asserting the claims identified in 

the proposed amended complaint, and further volunteered 

to “streamline” the case by dropping some of those claims. 

J.A. 3831. On these facts, we disagree with the district 

court that RCDI refused to identify the asserted dependent 

claims, and we conclude that the district court abused its 

Case: 19-1825 Document: 51 Page: 13 Filed: 05/18/2020
14 ROTHSCHILD CONNECTED DEVICES v. COCA-COLA COMPANY

discretion in dismissing the case as to the asserted dependent claims on this basis.2

CONCLUSION

We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we 

reverse the district court’s claim construction of “user interface module,” vacate the district court’s entry of summary judgment of noninfringement, and remand for 

further proceedings.3 RCDI raised a number of discoveryrelated issues on appeal. On remand, we expect that the 

district court will hold a new case management conference

concerning discovery.

REVERSED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND 

REMANDED

COSTS

Costs to appellant.

2 Coca-Cola argues that any error by the district 

court is harmless because “RCDI did not provide contentions for its dependent claims,” and “[o]n this basis,” the 

district court “would have granted summary judgment of 

non-infringement for the dependent claims.” Appellee’s Br. 

42. We decline to resolve this dispute in the first instance 

and leave it for the district court to address on remand.

3 RCDI contends that, on remand, both the Blister 

touchscreen and the Freestyle app on a user’s phone can 

each satisfy the “user interface module” limitation. We 

note that, even under our construction, RCDI’s phone app 

theory might present additional hurdles with regard to infringement. See, e.g., Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest 

Commc’ns Int’l, Inc., 631 F.3d 1279, 1286–87 (Fed. Cir. 

2011); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, 

Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1310–11 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

Case: 19-1825 Document: 51 Page: 14 Filed: 05/18/2020