Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01504/USCOURTS-ca13-19-01504-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
20/20 Vision Center, LLC
Appellant
M&D Optical Franchise, LLC
Appellee
Stanton Optical Florida, LLC
Appellee
Thomas Campen MD & Associates, PLLC
Appellee
Vision Precision Holdings, LLC
Appellee

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

20/20 VISION CENTER, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

VISION PRECISION HOLDINGS, LLC, STANTON 

OPTICAL FLORIDA, LLC, DBA STANTON 

OPTICAL & MY EYELAB, THOMAS CAMPEN MD & 

ASSOCIATES, PLLC, M&D OPTICAL FRANCHISE,

LLC,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2019-1504

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida in No. 9:18-cv-80670-RLR, 

Judge Robin L. Rosenberg.

______________________ 

Decided: March 4, 2020

______________________ 

K. LEE MARSHALL, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP,

San Francisco, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by JOSEPH J. RICHETTI, ALEXANDER DAVID

WALDEN, New York, NY; TAYLOR FORD, ROBYN KRAMER, 

King, Blackwell, Zehnder & Wermuth, P.A., Orlando, FL.

Case: 19-1504 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 03/04/2020
2 20/20 VISION CENTER, LLC v. VISION PRECISION HOLDINGS

JOSEPH W. BAIN, Shutts & Bowen LLP, West Palm 

Beach, FL, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by AMY WESSEL, Miami, FL. 

 ______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and WALLACH,

Circuit Judges.

WALLACH, Circuit Judge. 

Appellant 20/20 Vision Center, LLC (“20/20 Vision”) 

sued Appellees Vision Precision Holdings, LLC, Stanton 

Optical Florida, LLC, doing business as Stanton Optical & 

My Eyelab, Thomas Campen MD & Associates, PLLC, and

M&D Optical Franchise, LLC (collectively, “Vision Precision”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District 

of Florida (“District Court”), alleging, inter alia, infringement of claims 13, 14, 15, and 17 (“the Asserted Claims”) of 

20/20 Vision’s U.S. Patent No. 9,230,062 (“the ’062 patent”). Following a claim construction hearing, the District 

Court entered an order construing all disputed claim terms 

in Vision Precision’s favor. See 20/20 Vision Ctr., LLC v. 

Vision Precision Holdings, LLC, No. 9:18-CV-80670-RLR, 

2018 WL 5807654, at *10–11 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 6, 2018). As a 

result, the parties filed a joint motion for entry of final

judgment, which the District Court entered as a consent

judgment of non-infringement. J.A. 21–25 (Consent Judgment). 

20/20 Vision appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (2012). We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Entitled “Systems and Methods for Enabling Customers to Obtain Vision and Eye Health Examinations,” 

the ’062 patent “generally relates to the fields of optometry 

and ophthalmology and the performance of eye examinations[,]” where “certain embodiments are directed to systems and methods for enabling customers and other users 

Case: 19-1504 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 03/04/2020
20/20 VISION CENTER, LLC v. VISION PRECISION HOLDINGS 3

to obtain eye health examinations and vision examinations

through a customer diagnostic center that includes ophthalmic equipment and instruments for performing various 

tests and procedures pertaining to the customers’ eye 

health and visual ability.” ’062 patent col. 1 ll. 16–24. The 

’062 patent is directed to the “need for a system having an 

automated or semi-automated customer diagnostic center 

that allows individuals to obtain eye health examinations 

and vision examinations with little or no on-site assistance.” Id. col. 3 ll. 58–61.

The ’062 patent discloses “a system . . . that includes a 

customer diagnostic center that is configured to generate 

customer examination data,” and which “provides a user 

interface” and “ophthalmic equipment” to “administer[] 

tests.” Id. col. 4 ll. 15–24. The data is conveyed “over a 

network” from the “customer diagnostic center” to “[a] diagnostic center server” such that the data can be accessed 

remotely “by an eye-care practitioner” for “review and evaluation.” Id. col. 4 ll. 24–34. “An eye health report is [then] 

provided to the customer via the network.” Id. col. 4 ll. 34–

35. In some embodiments, “the system (or a portion 

thereof) may be configured to be fully automated,” such 

that customers may “obtain vision examinations . . . with

no assistance from others.” Id. col 32 ll. 12–17. 

Independent claim 13 recites in relevant part: 

A server for providing services related to eye health 

and vision examinations, wherein the server is configured to: 

 . . . . 

administer one or more tests to the customer during the eye examination conducted at the diagnostic center utilizing the 

ophthalmic equipment, the eye examination including an objective portion that utilizes the ophthalmic equipment to derive 

Case: 19-1504 Document: 45 Page: 3 Filed: 03/04/2020
4 20/20 VISION CENTER, LLC v. VISION PRECISION HOLDINGS

objective measurements pertaining to the 

one or more tests and a subjective portion 

that utilizes an audio response system that 

is configured to present questions to and receive responses from the customer pertaining to the one or more tests, wherein the 

subjective portion of the eye examination is 

administered using an iterative process 

that includes: 

selecting questions to present to 

the customer based on both the objective measurements derived during the objective portion of the eye 

examination and the responses 

that are received from the customer via the audio response system; 

based on the responses received 

from the customer via the audio response system, automatically adjusting ophthalmic equipment 

utilized in administering the subjective portion of the eye examination; and 

determining that the iterative process should be concluded in response to detecting that a 

particular combination of the responses received from the customer 

satisfies one or more conditions indicating that sufficient data has 

been collected for the subjective 

portion of the eye examination

 . . . . 

Case: 19-1504 Document: 45 Page: 4 Filed: 03/04/2020
20/20 VISION CENTER, LLC v. VISION PRECISION HOLDINGS 5

Id. col. 51 l. 19–col. 52 l. 18 (emphasis added). Claim 13’s 

“ophthalmic equipment” includes “a set of [medical] instruments” that are “coupled to an equipment controller that is 

configured to receive instructions for controlling the ophthalmic equipment.” Id. col. 51 ll. 35–38. 

Claims 14, 15, and 17 depend from claim 13. Dependent claim 14 provides for “at least one server [being] integrated with the diagnostic center.” Id. col. 52 ll. 19–20. 

Dependent claim 15 recites in relevant part: 

The server of claim 13, wherein the request pertains to a synchronous vision examination, and the 

server is further configured to: 

establish a real-time connection between 

the practitioner device associated with the 

selected eye-care practitioner and the diagnostic center to permit communications between the customer and the selected eye-care 

practitioner during the synchronous vision 

examinations; [and]

. . . . 

permit the practitioner device associated 

with the selected eye-care practitioner to remotely administer an interactive refraction 

test over the network via the real-time connection, wherein instructions are transmitted to the diagnostic center over the 

network to control the ophthalmic equipment while administering the interactive 

refraction test

. . . . 

Id. col. 52 ll. 21–37 (emphases added). Similarly, dependent claim 17 recites in relevant part: 

Case: 19-1504 Document: 45 Page: 5 Filed: 03/04/2020
6 20/20 VISION CENTER, LLC v. VISION PRECISION HOLDINGS

The server of claim 13, wherein the request pertains to a synchronous eye health examination, and 

the server is further configured to: 

establish a real-time connection between 

the practitioner device associated with the 

selected eye-care practitioner and the diagnostic center to permit communications between the customer and the selected eye-care 

practitioner during the synchronous eye 

health examinations; [and]

permit the practitioner device associated 

with the selected eye-care practitioner to remotely administer one or more tests associated with the synchronous eye health 

examination over the network via the realtime connection, wherein instructions received by the diagnostic center over the 

network are utilized to control the ophthalmic equipment during the synchronous eye 

health examination

. . . . 

Id. col. 52 l. 62–col. 53 l. 10 (emphases added). 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review and Legal Standard

“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) (citation omitted). “[C]laim construction must begin with the words of 

the claims themselves.” Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion 

Roussel, Inc., 457 F.3d 1293, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation 

omitted). “[W]ords of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” that they “would have to 

a person of ordinary skill in the art [(‘PHOSITA’)] in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp.,

Case: 19-1504 Document: 45 Page: 6 Filed: 03/04/2020
20/20 VISION CENTER, LLC v. VISION PRECISION HOLDINGS 7

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

quotation marks and citations omitted). The PHOSITA “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, including the specification.” Id. at 1313.1 Prosecution history may also be 

used to supply additional evidence of a claim term’s intended meaning. See Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. LifeScan, 

Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004).2 “We review the 

district court’s evaluation of the patent’s intrinsic record 

during claim construction de novo.” Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applied Media Techs. Corp., 783 F.3d 1262, 1265 (Fed. 

Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).3 

II. The District Court Properly Construed Independent 

Claim 13’s “Automatically Adjusting” Limitation

The District Court, relying on intrinsic evidence, determined that a PHOSITA would understand the limitation

1 “A specification includes both the written description and the claims of the patent.” Monsanto Tech. LLC v. 

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 878 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed. 

Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2 “The prosecution history . . . consists of the complete record of the proceedings before the [U.S. Patent and 

Trademark Office][.]” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (citation 

omitted).

3 20/20 Vision argues that “the District Court sidestepped its fundamental duty to construe the patent 

claims,” Appellant’s Br. 27 (capitalization altered), because 

it “adopted [Vision Precision’s] propos[ed] [claim construction order] largely verbatim, without any independent explanation or analysis,” id. at 28, such that “the order as-awhole should be viewed with a considerable degree of skepticism,” id. at 30. First, 20/20 Vision did not raise this argument before the District Court. J.A. 23–24 (consenting 

to final judgment of non-infringement based on the District 

Case: 19-1504 Document: 45 Page: 7 Filed: 03/04/2020
8 20/20 VISION CENTER, LLC v. VISION PRECISION HOLDINGS

“[b]ased on the responses received from the customer via 

the audio response system, automatically adjusting ophthalmic equipment” in independent claim 13 to mean that 

“the server hardware and software is configured to automatically transform the responses received through the audio response system into instructions to adjust the 

ophthalmic equipment without requiring assistance from 

an eye care practitioner or on-site technician.” 20/20 Vision, 2018 WL 5807654, at *11 (emphasis added). 20/20 

Vision argues that “the intrinsic record” and “express claim 

language” establish that “automatically adjusting the ophthalmic equipment” means that the ophthalmic equipment 

is adjusted “by the equipment controller based on the instructions received from an eye-care practitioner.” Appellant’s Br. 53. We disagree with 20/20 Vision. 

The District Court correctly construed “[b]ased on the 

responses received from the customer via the audio response system, automatically adjusting ophthalmic equipment.” We begin our analysis with the claims. See 

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (“[W]e look to the words of the 

claims themselves . . . to define the scope of the patented 

invention[.]” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Independent claim 13 recites “[a] server” that “is configured to . . . administer one or more tests to the customer 

during [an] eye examination[.]” ’062 patent col. 51 ll. 19–

20, 45–46. The server’s potential “tests” include “an 

Court’s claim construction). It is accordingly waived. See 

Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Nokia, Inc., 527 F.3d 1318, 

1322 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Our precedent generally counsels 

against entertaining arguments not presented to the district court.” (citation omitted)). Second, 20/20 Vision’s argument lacks a legal basis. That “the [D]istrict [C]ourt 

adopted many of [a prevailing party’s] proposed findings

does not alter our basic standard of review.” Roton Barrier, 

Inc. v. Stanley Works, 79 F.3d 1112, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

Case: 19-1504 Document: 45 Page: 8 Filed: 03/04/2020
20/20 VISION CENTER, LLC v. VISION PRECISION HOLDINGS 9

objective portion” and “a subjective portion.” Id. col. 51 ll. 

48, 50. The server “administer[s] [the subjective portion] 

using an iterative process that includes” employing “an audio response system . . . configured to present questions to 

and receive responses from the customer” and, “based on 

[those] responses,” “automatically adjusting ophthalmic 

equipment.” Id. col. 51 ll. 19, 54–64. As such, by claim 13’s 

plain language, its server can administer the “subjective 

portion” of an eye examination without assistance from an 

eye care practitioner or technician, utilizing the “audio response system” to “receive[]” customer responses and “automatically adjusting the ophthalmic equipment” “based on 

[those] responses.” Id. col. 51 ll. 45–64; see BrookhillWilk 1, LLC. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1299 

(Fed. Cir. 2003) (“While certain terms may be at the center 

of the claim construction debate, the context of the surrounding words of the claim also must be considered in determining the ordinary and customary meaning of those 

terms.”). 

We next look to the broader specification. See Phillips, 

415 F.3d at 1313 (“[T]he [PHOSITA] 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, including the specification.”). The specification does not expressly define “automatically adjusting,” it does, however, repeatedly use variations of the term 

“automatically.” See Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he specification may define claim terms by implication such that 

the meaning may be found in or ascertained by a reading 

of the patent documents.” (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted)). For example, the specification explains 

that the ’062 patent encompasses an “eye testing and evaluation system” that “may be implemented using different 

levels of automation and/or different types of assistance 

from on-site and/or remote individuals.” ’062 patent col. 32

ll. 5–11 (emphasis added). “[T]he system (or a portion 

Case: 19-1504 Document: 45 Page: 9 Filed: 03/04/2020
10 20/20 VISION CENTER, LLC v. VISION PRECISION HOLDINGS

thereof) may be configured to be fully automated,” such 

that customers may “obtain vision examinations . . . with 

no assistance from others.” Id. col 32 ll. 12–16 (emphasis 

added). This supports our understanding that independent 

claim 13 recites a server that is configured to perform eyeexamination tests automatically—that is, in a way that is 

automated, without requiring the assistance of an eye care 

practitioner or on-site technician. See Retractable Techs., 

Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296, 1305 (Fed. 

Cir. 2011) (explaining that claim construction “tether[s] 

the claims to what the specification[] indicate[s] the inventor actually invented”). 

Last, we consider the prosecution history. See Phillips, 

415 F.3d at 1317 (“[T]he prosecution history can often inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating 

how the inventor understood the invention and whether 

the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution.”). During patent prosecution, in response to patentability and obviousness rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 

§§ 101, 103 (2012), 20/20 Vision amended its proposed 

claims to add the limitation “automatically adjusting ophthalmic equipment.” J.A. 1757. The patent examiner had 

rejected the relevant claims as “directed toward . . . the abstract idea of remotely conducting eye examinations by 

providing the patient with instructions to administer the 

exam and forwarding results of the exam to a physician for 

analysis,” J.A. 1757, and obvious over prior art that disclosed such a “system for providing eye health and vision 

examinations,” J.A. 1666. In response, 20/20 Vision 

amended its claims to recite a server “configured to,” inter 

alia, “administer one or more tests to the customer,” with 

“a subjective portion that” includes “an iterative process” 

in which the server “automatically adjust[s] ophthalmic 

equipment” “based on the responses received from the customer via the audio response system.” J.A. 1718–19. 

In adding the “automatically adjusting” limitation, 

20/20 Vision explained that “automatically adjusting”

Case: 19-1504 Document: 45 Page: 10 Filed: 03/04/2020
20/20 VISION CENTER, LLC v. VISION PRECISION HOLDINGS 11

meant that “[t]he objective measurements and subjective 

responses,” received from the customer “via the audio response system,” “may be automatically transformed into 

instructions to control or adjust settings for the ophthalmic 

equipment.” J.A. 1736. 20/20 Vision described the process 

as “automated and iterative,” such that, unlike in prior art, 

eye examination tests could be conducted “without assistance from an eye practitioner or on-site technician.” 

J.A. 1741; see J.A. 1736–37 (explaining that automation 

“permits the subjective portion of an eye examination to be 

conducted without assistance from an eye [care] practitioner or on-site technician”). The patent examiner expressly relied upon these representations in withdrawing 

his § 101 and § 103 rejections. J.A. 1757 (withdrawing the 

§ 101 rejection because the “limitations added upon 

amendment including [the] automatically adjusting [limitation] . . . are limitations considered significantly more [of 

an] improvement to another technology or technical 

field”), 1757 (withdrawing the § 103 rejection “based on the 

changes made by [20/20 Vision] to the claims”). This confirms our understanding that independent claim 13’s 

server is configured to automatically adjust the ophthalmic 

equipment, based on responses received from the customer 

through the audio response system, without requiring assistance from an eye care practitioner or on-site technician. 

See Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, 882 F.3d 1132, 1136 

(Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that prosecution disclaimer is 

proper where “the applicant amended the claims and explained what was changed and why, and the examiner confirmed the reasons why the amended claims were deemed 

allowable”). 

20/20 Vision’s primary counterarguments are unpersuasive. First, 20/20 Vision argues that claim 13 specifically, and the Asserted Claims generally, require “that the 

ophthalmic equipment is ‘automatically adjusted’ by the 

equipment controller based on instructions received from 

an eye-care practitioner.” Appellant’s Br. 53

Case: 19-1504 Document: 45 Page: 11 Filed: 03/04/2020
12 20/20 VISION CENTER, LLC v. VISION PRECISION HOLDINGS

(capitalization altered). 20/20 Vision argues that, while 

“claim 13 does not restrict” who or what automatically adjusts the ophthalmic equipment, id. at 53–54, dependent 

claims 15 and 17 “both . . . recite that the ophthalmic 

equipment is controlled . . . by the eye-care practitioner,” 

such that independent claim 13 must encompass such a 

limitation, id. at 54. This argument is without merit. It is 

contrary to the plain language of independent claim 13. 

See ’062 patent col. 51 ll. 19–20, 45–55 (reciting that the 

“server” “administer[s]” the “subjective portion” of an eye 

examination, including “automatically adjusting ophthalmic equipment” based on customer responses). It also improperly reads a limitation from dependent claims 15 and 

17 into independent claim 13. See Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. 

v. Arm Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 

(explaining that, “normally . . . limitations stated in dependent claims are not to be read into the independent 

claim from which they depend” (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted)). 

Second, 20/20 Vision argues that, because the specification includes embodiments in which “eye-care practitioners (and other individuals) provid[e] instructions and 

inputs to the equipment controller to adjust the equipment 

during the eye examinations,” Appellant’s Br. 55, the “specification confirms that [the] ophthalmic equipment is automatically adjusted by eye-care practitioners[,]” id. at 54. 

This argument is similarly without merit. It improperly 

reads limitations from exemplary embodiments into independent claim 13. See Liebel–Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, 

Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[I]t is improper to 

read limitations from a preferred embodiment described in 

the specification—even if it is the only embodiment—into 

the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record 

that the patentee intended the claims to be so limited.”). 

Accordingly, the District Court properly construed “[b]ased 

on the responses received from the customer via the audio 

response system, automatically adjusting ophthalmic 

Case: 19-1504 Document: 45 Page: 12 Filed: 03/04/2020
20/20 VISION CENTER, LLC v. VISION PRECISION HOLDINGS 13

equipment” to mean that “the server hardware and software is configured to automatically transform the responses received through the audio response system into 

instructions to adjust the ophthalmic equipment without 

requiring assistance from an eye care practitioner or onsite technician.” 20/20 Vision, 2018 WL 5807654, at *11.

CONCLUSION

We have considered 20/20 Vision’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive.4 Accordingly, the Consent Judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Southern 

District of Florida is 

AFFIRMED

4 20/20 Vision contends that the District Court also 

erred by misconstruing the terms “eye-care practitioner,” 

see Appellant’s Br. 30–42, and “audio response system,” see 

id. at 42–51. However, based on parties’ concessions at oral 

argument, we need not reach these issues. See Oral Arg. 

at 17:07–38, http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=2019-1504.mp3 (20/20 Vision agreeing that 

affirmance on any one of the three terms at issue is “sufficient basis for affirming a judgment of non-infringement” 

of the Asserted Claims); id. at 17:56–18:11 (Vision Precision stating that affirmance on any one claim construction 

“would be the end of the case”); see also Vivid Techs., Inc. v. 

Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)

(“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”); J.A. 23–24 (Consent Judgment) (providing that 

the parties “stipulate and agree” that the District Court’s 

construction of each claim term “served as a separate 

ground” on which Vision Precision is “entitled to judgment 

as a matter of law on the issue of non-infringement” of the 

Asserted Claims). 

Case: 19-1504 Document: 45 Page: 13 Filed: 03/04/2020