Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01214/USCOURTS-ca13-14-01214-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Flexiteek Americas, Inc.
Appellant
Flexiteek International AS
Appellant
PlasDECK, Inc.
Appellee
PlasTEAK, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

FLEXITEEK AMERICAS, INC., a Florida corporation, FLEXITEEK INTERNATIONAL AS, a foreign 

corporation,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

PLASTEAK, INC., an Ohio corporation, 

PLASDECK, INC., an Ohio corporation,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2014-1214

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida in No. 0:12-cv-60215-PAS, 

Judge Patricia A. Seitz.

______________________ 

Decided: March 19, 2015

______________________ 

SCOTT D. SMILEY, The Concept Law Group. P.A., Fort 

Lauderdale, FL, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also 

represented by MARK C. JOHNSON; MICHAEL I. SANTUCCI, 

Santucci, Priore, & Long, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

Case: 14-1214 Document: 81-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/19/2015
2 FLEXITEEK AMERICAS, INC. v. PLASTEAK, INC. 

RONALD S. KOPP, Roetzel & Andress, Akron, OH, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by VIJAY 

GIBRAN BRIJBASI, Ft. Lauderdale, FL. 

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, BRYSON and WALLACH, Circuit 

Judges.

PROST, Chief Judge. 

Flexiteek Americas, Inc. and Flexiteek International 

AS appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida’s claim construction of “longitudinal slots” and summary judgment of noninfringement regarding United States Patent 6,895,881 

(’881 patent). For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellants are the owners of the ’881 patent, entitled 

“shape conforming surface covering.” The invention at 

issue in this case is extruded plastic planks that may be 

used in covering floors, walls, yacht decks, etc. The 

plastic planks are more durable and require much less 

upkeep than the traditional exotic woods used for the 

aforementioned purposes. Furthermore, the planks are 

inherently flexible. The ’881 patent describes the invention as follows: 

A shape conforming surface covering useful for 

covering any type of surfaces, and comprising 

planks or sheet of a plastic or flexible material 

adapted to be interconnected aside of each other 

thereby forming an assembled surface covering of 

optional length and width, and which planks or 

sheet are of a material that can be brought to 

curved formations, and which at the upper surface 

of the covering is roughened, for instance sanded 

or filed so as to imitate any unique grain effect of 

wooden material. Preferably the planks or sheet 

Case: 14-1214 Document: 81-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/19/2015
FLEXITEEK AMERICAS, INC. v. PLASTEAK, INC. 3

are formed with connection means at the longitudinal edges thereof. The surface covering may be 

an assembled unit comprising planks and caulking elements between each pair of planks.

’881 patent abstract. While claim 1 was cancelled on 

reexamination it remains in play as claims added during 

the reexamination depend from it. Therefore, it along 

with claim 2, are representative. Claim 1 reads:

A shape conforming surface covering useful for 

covering any type of surfaces, characterized in 

that the surface covering comprises planks or 

sheet of a flexible material adapted to be interconnected aside of each other thereby forming an 

assembled surface covering of optional length and 

width, and which planks are of a material that 

can be laid in curved formations, and which at the 

upper surface of the covering is roughened so as to 

imitate any unique grain effect of wooden material, further characterized in that the planks or 

sheet are formed with longitudinal slots at the 

underside thereof for facilitating forming of 

curved coverings and for acting as a base for a 

glue or adhesive material by means of which the 

surface covering is mounted on a surface recipient.

Claim 2 reads: 

The shape conforming surface covering of claim 1, 

wherein the planks or sheet are mounted on the 

surface recipient in a tightly curved formation only with adhesive and without use of additional 

fasteners.

In the initial suit (“Flexiteek I”), Appellants obtained a 

jury verdict of patent infringement of claim 1 of the ’881 

patent against Defendants-Appellees Plasteak, Inc. and 

Plasdeck, Inc. Appellees appealed and the Federal CirCase: 14-1214 Document: 81-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/19/2015
4 FLEXITEEK AMERICAS, INC. v. PLASTEAK, INC. 

cuit affirmed. Following the appeal, Appellees petitioned 

the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for an 

ex parte reexamination. The USPTO granted the petition, 

and ultimately invalidated claim 1 of the ’881 patent and 

issued a reexamination certificate with new claims 2-29. 

Notably, claims 2 through 8 continue to depend on invalidated claim 1. Appellees then petitioned the district court 

for relief from the Final Judgment as it was based on now 

cancelled claim 1, the district court granted the requested 

relief. 

Appellants then filed a second suit against the same 

defendants alleging, in relevant part, infringement of the 

reissued ’881 patent. During the course of litigation, the 

parties filed individual Markman briefs. The district 

court subsequently struck the parties’ Markman briefs 

and ordered the parties to submit a joint claim construction brief. The district court additionally ordered a technology tutorial. Although the Appellants objected, the 

court ordered that the Appellants’ commercial products 

and Appellees’ accused products be presented at the 

tutorial. Following the tutorial, the district court asked 

the parties if they wanted a Markman hearing. Both 

parties informed the district court that they did not. 

Following additional briefing, the district court issued its 

claim construction order. Appellees then moved for 

summary judgment of non-infringement, which the district court granted.1 The Appellants now appeal both the 

district court’s claim construction and summary judgment 

ruling. We have jurisdiction of this appeal under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a). 

1 Other claims were also addressed in the summary 

judgment, but they are not relevant here.

 

Case: 14-1214 Document: 81-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/19/2015
FLEXITEEK AMERICAS, INC. v. PLASTEAK, INC. 5

DISCUSSION

While the ultimate construction of a claim term is a 

legal question reviewed de novo, underlying factual 

determinations made by the district court are reviewed 

for clear error. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 

135 S. Ct. 831, 842 (2015). Specifically, “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. However, when the district court looks beyond the 

intrinsic evidence and consults extrinsic evidence, for 

example to understand the relevant science, these subsidiary fact findings are reviewed for clear error. Id. 

The challenge here goes to the district court’s construction of the term “longitudinal slots.” The district 

court construed the term “longitudinal slots” as:

Grooves spaced relatively close together that run 

parallel to each other for the length of the planks 

or sheet, wherein the grooves have a depth and 

width of a material percentage of the planks’ or 

sheets’ thickness such that the grooves materially 

increase the ability to curve and the surface area 

for adhesion.

Flexiteek Americas, Inc. v. PlasTEAK, Inc., 2013 WL 

3762290, at *4 (S.D. Fla. July 16, 2013). The district 

court analyzed the relevant claim term in two parts, “slot 

spacing” and “depth and width.” Pertaining to “slot 

spacing,” the district court determined that the specification showed that the slots must run parallel to each other, 

be spaced relatively close together, and be equally spaced. 

Furthermore, the district court concluded, on the basis of 

expert declarations, that one skilled in the art “would 

understand that to achieve tight curving with only the use

of glue or adhesive, the primary advancement of the 

Case: 14-1214 Document: 81-2 Page: 5 Filed: 03/19/2015
6 FLEXITEEK AMERICAS, INC. v. PLASTEAK, INC. 

invention, the longitudinal slots should run parallel to 

each other and be spaced in a close-together pattern.” Id.,

at *2. 

The district court additionally analyzed “longitudinal 

slots” in reference to their “depth and width.” The district 

court found that the invention was an enhancement of the 

normal extrusion process. The normal extrusion process 

aligns the plank’s molecules in the direction of extrusion, 

which results in an extra degree of flexibility as compared 

to the inherent flexibility of the material itself. The 

district court then found that the invention attempted to 

mimic these molecular arrangements by making additional slots on the bottom of the planks, thereby increasing the flexibility beyond what is possible by the extrusion 

process alone. Thus, the district court found that “characterizations of depth and width should be included in the 

construction of ‘longitudinal slots’” as it is necessary for 

the term’s construction to embody the “essence of the 

invention.” Id., at *3, *4. 

Appellants present four main arguments regarding 

why the district court’s claim construction is wrong. 

First, they argue that the district court’s claim construction was poisoned by the use of samples of the Appellants’ 

and Appellees’ commercial embodiments during the 

technology tutorial. Second, they contend that the district 

court construed the claim term contrary to the intrinsic 

evidence. Third, they argue that the district court construed the claim term contrary to three USPTO Examiners during a reexamination proceeding. Fourth, and 

finally, they argue that the district court construed the 

term contrary to the broader definition given by the 

district court in Flexiteek I. We reject all of these arguments. 

District courts are free to conduct technology tutorials 

when the district court determines that the tutorial will 

aid the court. Furthermore, there is no per se rule that 

Case: 14-1214 Document: 81-2 Page: 6 Filed: 03/19/2015
FLEXITEEK AMERICAS, INC. v. PLASTEAK, INC. 7

district courts cannot order a party to bring commercial 

embodiments to the tutorial to aid the court in understanding the technology at issue. Additionally, Appellants’ argument that the court was biased by the 

technology tutorial is without merit. Not only does the 

district court’s Markman opinion not reference the technology tutorial or the commercial embodiments, but a 

technology tutorial is not a Markman hearing. This is 

especially true here, where Appellants were asked by the 

court if they wished to have a Markman hearing following 

the technology tutorial, and the Appellants declined the

offer. 

We conclude that the district court properly construed 

the term “longitudinal slots” in light of both the intrinsic 

and extrinsic evidence. The patent’s specification provides two illustrations of the longitudinal slots, figures 1 

and 6. In both of these figures the longitudinal slots are 

depicted as being evenly spaced and running the length of 

the material. There is no other reference in the patent 

specification that provides an alternative definition or 

illustration of the longitudinal slots. Furthermore, while 

the figures do not specify exact depth ranges for the 

longitudinal slots, they do show that the slots have a noninsignificant depth. 

Additionally, during the reexamination Dr. C.K. Rhee, 

Flexiteek’s expert, asserted that the use of longitudinal 

slots on the underside of the material represented the 

true invention of the patent. In reaching this conclusion 

Dr. Rhee acknowledged that the extrusion process itself 

made the material inherently more flexible. Thus, he 

stated that the longitudinal slots added an extra degree of 

flexibility along the axis of extrusion, which was greater 

than the material’s inherent flexibility. Dr. Rhee also 

stated that the inventor, “greatly enhanced the degree of 

flexibility that would have been inherent to the material 

itself by adding a series of longitudinal slots and/or ribs in 

a very tight pattern on the underside of the plank or 

Case: 14-1214 Document: 81-2 Page: 7 Filed: 03/19/2015
Case: 14-1214 Document: 81-2 Page: 8 Filed: 03/19/2015
FLEXITEEK AMERICAS, INC. v. PLASTEAK, INC. 9

be no infringement as “longitudinal slots” inherently 

require at least two recesses. We agree. The claim construction of “longitudinal slots” requires that a plank have 

“grooves,” i.e. more than one groove. As the Shiplap 

design has no more than a single groove, it does not meet 

the “longitudinal slots” claim limitation, and thus summary judgment for the Appellees is warranted. 

Turning to the T-Shaped design, the district court 

found that even if the edges were found to be slots, the 

side edges do not constitute slots as defined by the patent 

claims as they are not relatively close together. In reaching its decision, the district court relied on Dr. Rhee’s 

expert report, submitted during the reexamination, that 

confirmed that the longitudinal slots taught by the ’881 

patent are found on the underside of the individual 

planks of the flooring material and thus materially increase the ability of the planks to curve. Again we agree 

with the district court’s analysis. The T-Shape design has 

at most two grooves on opposite sides of the plank. The 

claim limitation “longitudinal slots” require that the 

grooves be spaced relatively close together; it is axiomatic 

that grooves on opposite sides of a plank could not meet 

the claim limitation requiring that the grooves be “relatively close together.” Furthermore, the Appellants own 

expert explains that in order to increase the flexibility of 

the planks, it is necessary that the longitudinal slots be 

positioned in a very tight pattern. J.A. 789. Again, 

having slots on either side of a plank is not consistent 

with being in a “very tight pattern.” Therefore we affirm 

the district court’s grant of summary judgment as it 

relates to the T-Shape products.

We have reviewed Appellants’ remaining arguments 

and find them unpersuasive.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment 

of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida 

Case: 14-1214 Document: 81-2 Page: 9 Filed: 03/19/2015
10 FLEXITEEK AMERICAS, INC. v. PLASTEAK, INC. 

as it pertains to the claim construction of the phrase 

“longitudinal slots” and the district court’s summary 

judgment ruling as it pertains to non-infringement. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 14-1214 Document: 81-2 Page: 10 Filed: 03/19/2015