1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-22945-Civ-SCOLA/TORRES

DECURTIS LLC, 

 Plaintiff, 

v.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

___________________________________________ 

CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

 Plaintiff, 

v.

DECURTIS CORPORATION and 

DECURTIS LLC,

Defendants.

___________________________________________/ 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Pending before the Court in this consolidated patent case are the parties’ claim 

construction briefs as well as DeCurtis’ interwoven motion for summary judgment 

relating to invalidity under 35 U.S.C. ¶ 112.1 The issues have been fully briefed and 

1 The parties filed their joint claim construction statement on October 1, 2021, 

[D.E. 183], their opening claim construction briefs on November 5, 2021, [D.E. 201, 

205], and their responsive claim construction briefs on November 23, 2021 [D.E. 223, 

225]. DeCurtis concurrently filed its motion for summary judgment on November 5, 

2021, [D.E. 203], to which Carnival responded on November 20, 2021 [D.E. 212]. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 1 of 38
2 

are now ripe for disposition. Having reviewed the briefing, the related submissions, 

and the relevant case law, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court 

recommends that the claims be construed as discussed below. This effectively means 

that Carnival’s motion opening claim construction [D.E. 205] should be GRANTED.2 

Furthermore, the Court recommends that DeCurtis’ motion for summary judgment 

[D.E. 203, 236] be DENIED. 

I. BACKGROUND

Carnival patented3 what it calls a “guest engagement system” – an invention 

that uses wireless sensing technology to enable a host to “seamlessly” engage with 

guests throughout the host’s facilities. Although these patents describe a complex 

invention that depends upon the sophisticated implementation of recent advances in 

computing and wireless communication technologies, the patents’ claims are 

generally written in language that can be easily understood by a person of ordinary 

skill in the art (a “POSITA”) as well as a lay juror. Nevertheless, the parties dispute 

the meaning of some of these patents’ claims – the language in the patent that 

describes the metes and bounds of the invention much like a deed might describe the 

DeCurtis subsequently filed its reply on November 26, 2021, [D.E. 230], and it 

supplemented the record on January 6, 2022 [D.E. 249]. Unredacted versions of the 

summary judgment briefing have also been filed under seal. See, e.g., [D.E. 236]. 

2 On November 20, 2020, the Honorable Robert N. Scola referred this case and 

motion to the Undersigned Magistrate for disposition. [D.E. 102]. 

3 The three patents at issue, which share a common specification, are U.S. 

Patent No. 10,045,184 (the “’184 patent” or “system patent”), [D.E. 205-2], U.S. Patent 

No. 10,049,516 (the “’516 patent” or “door lock patent”), [D.E. 205-3], and U.S. Patent 

No. 10,157,514 (the “’514 patent or “portable wireless device patent”), [D.E. 205-4]. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 2 of 38
3 

boundaries of real property – and so the Court has been called upon at this juncture 

to properly interpret and construe these disputed claims. 

Carnival’s patents certainly have applications beyond the cruise ship 

environment but, for the sake of concise illustration, the Court will adopt the cruise 

ship as the exemplary vessel for Carnival’s novel guest engagement system. In this 

example, the first piece of technology that a guest might concern themselves with is 

the portable wireless device that is 

designed to be carried by the guest 

during the duration of their cruise: 

the “medallion.” See, e.g., ‘184 

patent, Figure 2B. Small enough 

to securely fit in a spectrum of accessories (e.g., a wrist band or necklace), this 

medallion comprises a processor, a memory, a battery, and two wireless 

communication antennas – one configured for Bluetooth low energy communication 

(“BLE”) and the other configured for near field communication (“NFC”). 

The medallion communicates with a plurality of sensors throughout the cruise 

ship to automatically identify and authenticate the guest throughout the facility. See, 

e.g., ‘184 patent, Figure 1A. Thus, for example, the guest need only turn the door 

handle to access their state room because the guest engagement system can unlock 

the door when it senses that the medallion is sufficiently close to the guest’s assigned 

room. The guest engagement system enables additional services as well, such as 

granting automatic access to interactive displays throughout the cruise ship, 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 3 of 38
4 

empowering automated payment at 

vending terminals, automatically 

informing host employees – such as 

the concierge – of the guest’s past 

experiences and preferences, and 

permitting the host to track the 

location of its guests during an 

emergency evacuation. Accordingly, 

as these patents explain, the guest engagement system allows the host to provide 

services to guests without requiring the guests proactively identify themselves. 

To be clear, the foregoing description of Carnival’s patents does not fully 

appreciate the entire breadth of Carnival’s invention; it does, however, illustrate a 

few ways in which Carnival’s patented advances in wireless sensing technology may 

benefit a guest aboard one of Carnival’s properly equipped cruise ships. Thus, the 

foregoing merely serves to orient the reader. 

The patented nature of Carnival’s inventions is principally controlled by the 

language in the patents’ claims – language that this Court is now called upon to 

construe. Accordingly, the claims at issue are reprinted below with emphasis added 

to highlight the disputed language.

A. ‘184 patent, claim 1.

A guest engagement system comprising: 

a plurality of portable guest devices provided to users of the guest 

engagement system to be carried by the users, each guest device 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 4 of 38
5 

including a wireless communication antenna and operative to emit a 

periodic beacon signal broadcasting a unique identifier of the guest 

device using Bluetooth low energy (BLE) communications; 

a sensor network comprising a plurality of sensors each mounted at a 

different known location and operative to detect the periodic beacon 

signals including the unique identifiers emitted using BLE 

communications by portable guest devices of the plurality of portable 

guest devices that are proximate to the sensor; 

a communication network connecting each of the plurality of sensors of 

the sensor network; and 

a central server communicatively connected to each of the plurality of 

sensors of the sensor network via the communication network, and 

storing a log associating each unique identifier of a portable guest device 

detected using BLE communications by a sensor of the sensor network 

with the known location of the sensor and a timestamp,4 

wherein the plurality of sensors of the sensor network comprises a 

plurality of access panels each configured to control an associated 

electronically controlled door lock, 

each access panel is operative to detect the periodic beacon signals 

including the unique identifiers emitted using BLE communications by 

guest devices that are proximate thereto, and to selectively unlock the 

associated electronically controlled door lock based on the unique 

identifier of the detected periodic beacons, and 

each access panel comprises: 

a radio configured for wireless communication with a door lock 

communication module5 electrically connected to an electronically 

4 Carnival proposes that this claim be given its plain and ordinary meaning; no 

construction is necessary. [D.E. 183 at 2]. DeCurtis proposes “recording in nontransitory memory an association between each unique identifier of a portable guest 

device detected using BLE communications, the location of the sensor that detected 

the portable device, and a timestamp[.]” Id. 

5 Carnival proposes that this claim be given its plain and ordinary meaning, 

wherein the radio is a physical component of the access panel. [D.E. 183 at 2]. 

DeCurtis proposes “a physical component of the access panel for communicating with 

the door lock communication module in the radio (RF) band, which is below the 

infrared (IR) band[.]” Id. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 5 of 38
6 

controlled locking mechanism of the associated electronically controlled 

door lock; 

a first transceiver configured for wireless BLE communication with the 

guest devices to identify users seeking to activate the electronically 

controlled locking mechanism; and 

a second transceiver configured for communication with the central 

server6 storing identifiers of users authorized to activate the 

electronically controlled locking mechanism.

B. ‘184 patent, claim 2.

The guest engagement system of claim 1, wherein the central server 

comprises a central reservation server7 associating with each 

electronically controlled door lock a list of unique identifiers of guest 

devices being authorized to access the electronically controlled door lock, 

wherein each access panel is operative to selectively unlock the 

associated electronically controlled door lock based on whether the 

unique identifier of the detected periodic beacon matches an identifier 

of the list stored in the central server of unique identifiers of guest 

devices authorized access to the electronically controlled door lock.

C. ‘184 patent, claim 7.

A guest engagement system comprising: 

a plurality of portable guest devices provided to users of the guest 

engagement system to be carried by the users, each guest device 

including a wireless communication antenna and operative to emit a 

periodic beacon signal broadcasting a unique identifier of the guest 

device using Bluetooth low energy (BLE) communications; 

6 Carnival proposes that this claim be given its plain and ordinary meaning, 

provided that the “second transceiver” could be a wired or wireless transceiver. [D.E. 

183 at 2]. DeCurtis proposes “a wireless transceiver for communication with the 

central server[.]” Id. 

7 Carnival proposes that this claim be given its plain and ordinary meaning; no 

construction is necessary. [D.E. 183 at 2]. DeCurtis proposes “a server for receiving 

and storing information about a guest’s reservation and preferences[.]” Id. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 6 of 38
7 

a sensor network comprising a plurality of sensors each mounted at a 

different known location and operative to detect the periodic beacon 

signals including the unique identifiers emitted using BLE 

communications by portable guest devices of the plurality of portable 

guest devices that are proximate to the sensor; 

a communication network connecting each of the plurality of sensors of 

the sensor network; 

a central server communicatively connected to each of the plurality of 

sensors of the sensor network via the communication network, and 

storing a log associating each unique identifier of a portable guest device 

detected using BLE communications by a sensor of the sensor network 

with the known location of the sensor and a timestamp;8 and 

a plurality of interface devices providing personalized services to users 

of the guest engagement system, 

wherein the plurality of sensors of the sensor network comprises a 

plurality of access panels each configured to control an associated 

electronically controlled door lock, 

each access panel is operative to detect the periodic beacon signals 

including the unique identifiers emitted using BLE communications by 

guest devices that are proximate thereto, and to selectively unlock the 

associated electronically controlled door lock based on the unique 

identifier of the detected periodic beacons, and 

each interface device comprises an associated sensor of the plurality of 

sensors of the sensor network, and provides the personalized services to 

a user proximate thereto based on an identity of the user determined

based on the unique identifier emitted using BLE communications by a 

guest device of the user.

D. ‘184 patent, claim 11.

A guest engagement system comprising: 

8 Carnival proposes that this claim be given its plain and ordinary meaning; no 

construction is necessary. [D.E. 183 at 2]. DeCurtis proposes “recording in nontransitory memory an association between each unique identifier of a portable guest 

device detected using BLE communications, the location of the sensor that detected 

the portable device, and a timestamp[.]” Id. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 7 of 38
8 

a plurality of portable guest devices provided to users of the guest 

engagement system to be carried by the users, each guest device having 

a unique identifier and including first and second wireless 

communication antennas respectively configured for Bluetooth low 

energy (BLE) and near field communication (NFC) communications; 

a sensor network comprising a plurality of sensors each mounted at a 

different location, wherein at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors 

is operative to detect portable guest devices that are proximate thereto 

and receive unique identifiers therefrom based on BLE communication 

with the portable guest devices and at least another sensor of the 

plurality of sensors is operative to detect portable guest devices that are

proximate thereto and receive unique identifiers therefrom based on 

NFC communication with the portable guest devices; 

a communication network connecting each of the plurality of sensors of 

the sensor network; and 

a central server communicatively connected to each of the plurality of 

sensors of the sensor network via the communication network, and 

storing a log associating each unique identifier of a portable guest device

received using BLE or NFC communications by a sensor of the sensor 

network,9 

wherein each guest device is configured to selectively operate according 

to first and second operating modes, each guest device engaging in bidirectional communication using the first wireless communication 

antenna configured for BLE communications in the first operating mode 

and engaging in a beacon mode periodically broadcasting a beacon signal 

using the first wireless communication antenna configured for BLE

communications in the second operating mode, and 

each sensor of the sensor network is operative to transmit a command to 

a guest device in its communication range to cause the guest device to 

change operating mode between the first and second operating modes.10

9 Carnival proposes that this claim be given its plain and ordinary meaning. 

[D.E. 183 at 2]. If construction is deemed necessary, however, Carnival proposes 

“storing a log associating each unique identifier of a portable guest device received 

using BLE or NFC communications by a sensor of the sensor network with log 

information[.]” Id. DeCurtis argues that this claim is invalid as indefinite. Id. 

10 Carnival proposes “each BLE sensor of the sensor network is operative to 

transmit a command to a guest device in its communication range to cause the guest 

device to change operating mode between the first and second operating modes.” [D.E. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 8 of 38
9 

E. ‘516 patent, claim 13.

An electronic door lock assembly comprising: 

a latch assembly including a latch and an electronically controlled 

locking mechanism operative to selectively unlock a door; 

a door lock communication module electrically connected to the 

electronically controlled locking mechanism of the latch assembly, and 

including a radio configured for wireless communication; and 

an access panel separate from and fixedly mounted proximate to the 

door lock communication module and latch assembly, and including a 

radio configured for wireless communication with the door lock 

communication module,11 a first transceiver configured for wireless 

communication with a portable user device, and a second transceiver for 

communication with a reservation server,12 

wherein the access panel separate from and fixedly mounted proximate 

to the door lock communication module is configured to receive door 

access information from the reservation server13 via the second 

transceiver, determine whether the door should be unlocked based on 

183 at 3]. DeCurtis proposes “every sensor of the sensor network is operative to 

transmit a command to cause the guest device to change between the first BLE 

operating mode and the second BLE operating mode.” Id. Alternatively, DeCurtis 

argues that this claim is invalid for lacking written description support. Id. 

11 Carnival proposes that this claim be given its plain and ordinary meaning, 

wherein the radio is a physical component of the access panel. [D.E. 183 at 2]. 

DeCurtis proposes “a physical component of the access panel for communicating with 

the door lock communication module in the radio (RF) band, which is below the 

infrared (IR) band[.]” Id. 

12 Carnival proposes that this claim be given its plain and ordinary meaning in 

that the “second transceiver” could be a wired or wireless transceiver. [D.E. 183 at 

2]. DeCurtis proposes “a wireless transceiver for communication with a reservation 

server[.]” Id. 

13 Carnival proposes that this claim be given its plain and ordinary meaning; no 

construction is necessary. [D.E. 183 at 2]. DeCurtis proposes “a server for receiving 

and storing information about a guest’s reservation and preferences[.]” Id. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 9 of 38
10

the door access information received from the reservation server, and 

transmit an instruction to unlock the door to the door lock 

communication module via the radio based on the determination. 

F. ‘514 patent, claim 11.

A portable wireless device comprising: 

a body having a fully enclosed cavity, the body having all dimensions 

equal to or smaller than 2.5 inches, and the body having a thickness 

equal to or smaller than 5/8 inch; 

a processor, a memory, a battery, and first and second wireless 

communication antennas disposed in the cavity, 

wherein the first and second wireless communication antennas are 

respectively configured for Bluetooth low energy (BLE) and near field 

communication (NFC) communications,14 

the processor is configured to establish secure communication links with 

remote communication devices15 using the first wireless communication 

antenna configured for BLE communications, 

the memory stores both public and private identifiers unique to the 

portable wireless device,16 

14 Carnival proposes that this claim be given its plain and ordinary meaning; no 

construction is necessary. [D.E. 183 at 3]. DeCurtis argues that this claim is invalid 

for lack of enablement. Id. Alternatively, DeCurtis proposes that this claim be 

limited to the portable wireless device disclosed on Figures 5A through 5J of the 

common specification. Id. 

15 Carnival proposes that this claim be given its plain and ordinary meaning; no 

construction is necessary. [D.E. 183 at 3]. DeCurtis proposes “the processor is 

coupled to memory storing the necessary encryption keys to create the secure 

communication link[.]” Id. Alternatively, DeCurtis argues that this claim is invalid 

for lacking written description support. Id. 

16 Carnival proposes that this claim be given its plain and ordinary meaning in 

that it recites a memory capable of performing the proposed function. [D.E. 183 at 3-

4]. DeCurtis proposes “the memory actually containing both public and private 

identifiers unique to the portable wireless device[.]” Id. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 10 of 38
11

the processor controls the first wireless communication antenna to emit 

a periodic beacon signal broadcasting the unique public identifier of the 

portable wireless device using BLE communications, and 

the processor controls the first wireless communication antenna to 

transmit the private identifier only across secure communication links 

established with remote communication devices using BLE 

communications.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Claim construction.

It is the exclusive province of the Court to determine the meaning and scope of 

a patent claim. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996); 

Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 321 (2015). But claim 

construction is required only when “the meaning or scope of technical terms and 

words of art is unclear and in dispute and requires resolution” by the Court. Eli Lilly 

& Co. v. Aradigm Corp., 376 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

The words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary” 

meaning as understood by a POSITA at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH 

Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Importantly, the POSITA 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. In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language 

as understood by a POSITA may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and so “claim 

construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely 

accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 11 of 38
12

The Court looks first to the language in the claims themselves to define the 

scope of the patented invention. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 

1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). But the claims do not stand alone because they are part of a 

“fully integrated written instrument” that consists primarily of a specification that 

concludes with the claims. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. Therefore, the claims must be 

read in light of the specification, which is always “highly relevant” to and usually 

“dispositive” of the claim construction analysis. Id. If the specification contains a 

clear lexicography or disavowal, such an explicit definition or manifest exclusion will 

govern. Id. at 1316. But, 

[u]ltimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be 

determined and confirmed with a full understanding of what the 

inventors actually invented and intended to envelop with the claim. The 

construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally 

aligns with the patent's description of the invention will be, in the end, 

the correct construction.

Id. (quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ Per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. 

Cir. 1998)). 

In addition to the intrinsic evidence contained within the patent itself, the 

Court may also consider the patent’s prosecution history while interpreting the claim 

terms, but such history is typically less useful for claim construction purposes 

because it represents “an ongoing negotiation” between the USPTO and the 

applicant. Id. at 1317. “Nonetheless, the 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, 

making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.” Id. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 12 of 38
13

The Court may also rely on extrinsic evidence, which consists of “all evidence 

external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor 

testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Id. Extrinsic evidence is, however, 

“less significant” than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative 

meaning of the language in a patent’s claim because extrinsic evidence is less reliable 

than intrinsic evidence. Id. at 1317-18. Therefore, in most situations, an analysis of 

the “intrinsic evidence alone” will resolve any ambiguity in a disputed claim term. 

Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583. 

B. Summary judgment.

“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no 

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 

A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must 

support the assertion by: (A) citing to particular parts of materials in 

the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored 

information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those 

made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory 

answers, or other materials; or (B) showing that materials cited do not 

establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an 

adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). “On summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the 

underlying facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the 

motion.” Matsushita Electric Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 597 

(1986) (quoting another source). 

In opposing a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party may not 

rely solely on the pleadings, but must show by affidavits, depositions, answers to 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 13 of 38
14

interrogatories, and admissions that specific facts exist demonstrating a genuine 

issue for trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323B24 

(1986). The existence of a mere “scintilla” of evidence in support of the nonmovant’s 

position is insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably 

find for the nonmovant. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). 

“A court need not permit a case to go to a jury . . . when the inferences that are drawn 

from the evidence, or upon which the non-movant relies, are ‘implausible.’” Mize v. 

Jefferson City Bd. Of Educ., 93 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 1996) (citing Matsushita, 475 

U.S. at 592-94). 

At the summary judgment stage, the Court’s function is not to “weigh the 

evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a 

genuine issue for trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. In making this determination, 

the Court must decide which issues are material. A material fact is one that might 

affect the outcome of the case. See id. at 248 (“Only disputes over facts that might 

affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry 

of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not 

be counted.”). “Summary judgment will not lie if the dispute about a material fact is

‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict 

for the nonmoving party.” Id. 

III. ANALYSIS

Although the patents at issue in this case describe complex technology, it 

should be obvious after reviewing the language of the disputed claims that the claims 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 14 of 38
Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 15 of 38
16

that no construction is necessary with respect to the “storing a log” term of claim 1 

and claim 7 of the ‘184 patent. 

What is claimed here is a guest engagement system comprising a central server 

that stores a log.18 That “log” in turn associates each unique identifier of a portable 

guest device detected using BLE communications by a sensor in the sensor network 

with the known location of the sensor and a timestamp. A plain reading of the claim 

reveals an invention that comprises (1) a log associating three data points (i.e., the 

unique identifier, the location of the sensor that detected the unique identifier, and a 

timestamp documenting that moment of detection) and (2) a central server 

responsible for storing that log. DeCurtis incorrectly seeks to rewrite and materially

change this claim in two ways. 

First, DeCurtis’ proposed construction appears to require the server – not the 

log – to perform the task of associating the recited information. But that is not what 

the text of the patent claims and, in any event, the specification teaches an 

embodiment wherein the sensors in the sensor network create the log associating the 

recited information before the log is stored on the central server. [D.E. 205-2, 23:4-

11]. Reading a preferred embodiment out of the claim language is “rarely, if ever” 

the correct result in a claim construction analysis. See Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583. 

Second, DeCurtis’ proposed construction requires this association of the recited 

information to be recorded in “non-transitory” memory. But this proposed 

18 The parties agree that a “log” is a “place to record information or a place where 

information is stored for a period of time.” [D.E. 223 at 12].

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 16 of 38
Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 17 of 38
18

DeCurtis has not proposed a construction for the “storing a log” term in claim 

11 of the ‘184 patent. By contrast, it argues that the claim is invalid because it is 

indefinite. Accordingly, DeCurtis moves for summary judgment on this issue. 

Federal law requires the patent to “conclude with one or more claims 

particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the 

inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). 

Accordingly, a patent claim is invalid for indefiniteness if it “fail[s] to inform, with 

reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” 

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014). Put differently, 

a patent claim is indefinite unless it is “precise enough to afford clear notice of what 

is claimed, thereby apprising the public of what is still open to them.” Id. at 909 

(internal quotations omitted and alterations adopted). Indefiniteness is an issue of 

claim construction, which is a question of law for the Court to resolve. In re Packard, 

751 F.3d 1307, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 

Unlike claim 1 and claim 7 of the ‘184 patent, claim 11 does not specify the 

data that the “log” must associate with each unique identifier that is detected by a 

sensor in the sensor network. DeCurtis argues that this makes the claim indefinite, 

resulting in its invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Carnival counters that the claim is 

not indefinite; rather, the claim is intentionally broad. 

Starting with the language of the claim itself, what is claimed is a guest 

engagement system comprising a central server that stores a log. This undoubtedly 

has the same meaning as the materially identical language in claim 1 and claim 7, 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 18 of 38
19

which requires no construction by the Court. But the log of claim 11, unlike the log 

described in claim 1 and claim 7, associates each detected unique identifier with some 

other, unspecified data. On this much, the parties agree. But DeCurtis then posits 

that the failure to specify that other data renders the claim indefinite. Carnival 

responds that the failure to specify that other data was entirely the point because the 

claim, as written, encompasses all of the data that a host may wish to associate with 

each detected unique identifier in a log. 

It is evident from the language in the patent that Carnival’s invention has 

applications beyond the cruise ship environment. It follows that different 

applications of this invention may warrant variability in the data that is associated 

with the detected unique identifiers in a log. Accordingly, Carnival claimed that its 

invention stores a log that associates each detected unique identifier with other log 

information. That is a broad claim, but breadth does not necessarily equate to 

indefiniteness. See 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1325 

(Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[A] patentee is entitled to the full breadth of claim scope supported 

by the words of the claims and the written description[.]”). 

 DeCurtis unpersuasively argues that Carnival’s willingness to construe this 

claim by adding “with log information” to the end of the disputed claim language 

evidences the ambiguity inherent in the claim as it is written. But, as written, the 

claim covers a log that associates one data point: a detected unique identifier. The 

only way in which the log could “associate” that data point is to tie it, in some fashion, 

to at least one other data point. Thus, Carnival’s proposed construction merely 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 19 of 38
Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 20 of 38
21

The parties agree that, at a minimum, the term “radio” should be construed as 

a physical component of the access panel. Accordingly, the Court agrees and adopts 

this aspect of the construction. The parties also appear to agree that this claim 

concerns a radio that communicates wirelessly, even though DeCurtis’ proposed 

construction expressly omits the word “wireless.” But the parties’ agreement ends 

there because DeCurtis believes that the term “radio” needs additional construction. 

This is another unpersuasive attempt by DeCurtis to narrow the meaning of 

the claim through unnecessary specificity. The Court has no doubt that a POSITA 

(and even a lay juror) would be familiar with the plain and ordinary meaning of the 

word “radio” because the technology has literally permeated everyday life for the past 

century. And nothing in the intrinsic evidence otherwise merits the rewriting of a 

claim that can be clearly understood according to its plain and ordinary meaning. 

What is claimed is a guest engagement system comprising an access panel that 

in turn comprises a radio configured for wireless communication with the door lock 

communication module. Although the parties agree that clarity would be useful 

insofar as it confirms that the radio is a physical part of the access panel, DeCurtis 

seeks to further define communication by radio as communication occurring in the 

radio band. 

The Court finds, however, that a POSITA would readily understand what 

communication by radio entails and, therefore, additional construction here is 

unnecessary. Therefore, claim 1 of the ‘184 patent and claim 13 of the ‘516 patent 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 21 of 38
Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 22 of 38
23

 “The prosecution history constitutes a public record of the patentee's 

representations concerning the scope and meaning of the claims, and competitors are 

entitled to rely on those representations when ascertaining the degree of lawful 

conduct, such as designing around the claimed invention.” Hockerson-Halberstadt, 

Inc. v. Avia Grp. Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Accordingly, “where the 

patentee has unequivocally disavowed a certain meaning to obtain his patent, the 

doctrine of prosecution disclaimer attaches and narrows the ordinary meaning of the 

claim congruent with the scope of the surrender.” Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 

334 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003). But the standard for disclaimer is “demanding” 

and so there must be a “clear and unmistakable” disavowal for the doctrine of 

prosecution disclaimer to apply. Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc., 812 F>3d 1040, 

1045 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 

DeCurtis’ argument hinges entirely on a statement made by Carnival during 

patent prosecution in which Carnival distinguished its invention from prior art 

(specifically, the “Scalisi” patent). [D.E. 199-12 at 12] (“The security system [of the 

Scalisi patent] is notably not described as having described as having multiple 

wireless communication interfaces including ‘a radio [...], a first transceiver [...], and 

a second transceiver [...]’” in accordance with those detailed in claim 71.”) (emphasis 

and ellipses in original). DeCurtis views this as a clear and unmistakable disavowal 

of a wired second transceiver because the statement can be reasonably interpreted as 

communicating that the radio, first transceiver, and the second transceiver are 

wireless. Although the Court agrees that this is a reasonable interpretation of a 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 23 of 38
24

statement made by Carnival during its patent prosecution, the Court is not 

persuaded that it amounts to a “clear and unmistakable” disavowal of a wired second 

transceiver.

A review of the Scalisi patent indicates that it does not claim multiple wireless 

communication interfaces. Accordingly, it is also reasonable to interpret Carnival’s 

attempt to distinguish its invention from Scalisi as being inclusive of a wired second 

transceiver because the material distinguishing factor in Carnival’s argument – i.e., 

its inclusion of “multiple” wireless communication interfaces – can be achieved by the

existence of the radio and first transceiver. Thus, DeCurtis’ construction is flawed 

because where “an applicant’s statements are amenable to multiple reasonable 

interpretations, they cannot be deemed clear and unmistakable.” 3M Innovative 

Props., 725 F.3d at 1326.

The Court finds that the claims should be given their plain and ordinary 

meaning. And because DeCurtis is unable to identify a clear and unmistakable 

disavowal regarding the scope of these claims, the claims should be construed to 

encompass both wired and wireless embodiments of the second transceiver. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 24 of 38
Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 25 of 38
Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 26 of 38
27

operating modes. Therefore, the parties agree that the claims regarding the portable 

wireless device’s operating modes should be construed as BLE operating modes. But 

the parties disagree as to whether the patent claims that “every sensor” in the sensor 

network is operative to change a portable guest device’s BLE operating mode, 

DeCurtis’ position, or whether the claim is limited to “each BLE sensor” in the sensor 

network, the construction proposed by Carnival. 

The Court agrees that some construction is warranted here because the claim, 

as its written, grammatically suggests that “each” sensor in the sensor network 

means “every” sensor in the sensor network – i.e., every BLE sensor, every NFC 

sensor, and every combined BLE/NFC sensor. But a closer examination of the 

language in the patent makes it clear that the “operating modes” of claim 11 are BLE 

operating modes, and so a POSITA would understand from the specification that the 

“command” to change from one BLE operating mode to another BLE operating mode 

must be accomplished using BLE communication protocols. Thus, even if the 

grammar of the claim suggests that “each sensor” means “every sensor,” the context 

supplied by the intrinsic evidence confirms that “each sensor” means “each BLE 

sensor.” 

Adopting Carnival’s proposed construction effectively disposes of DeCurtis’ 

summary judgment argument as well because DeCurtis’ argument – the claim is 

invalid because it lacks the written description of an NFC sensor that is capable of 

commanding the change of BLE operating modes – hinges upon DeCurtis’ proposed 

“every sensor” construction. Because the Court adopts Carnival’s proposed 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 27 of 38
Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 28 of 38
29

Both a POSITA and a lay juror could readily understand the meaning of this 

claim as it is written: what is claimed is a device that is smaller than the recited size 

and that comprises the recited elements. DeCurtis cannot persuasively argue 

otherwise. Instead, DeCurtis urges the Court to find that the claim is invalid for lack 

of enablement, and it alternatively asks the Court to limit this claim to the 

embodiments disclosed in Figures 5A through 5J of the ‘514 patent. 

The enablement doctrine is derived from 35 U.S.C. ¶ 112 and it requires the 

specification of a patent to teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full 

scope of the invention without “undue experimentation.” Genentech, Inc. v. Novo 

Nordisk, A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, because this claim does 

not recite a minimum size for the portable guest device, DeCurtis perceives the 

claimed scope of the invention to cover any embodiment of the device that is smaller 

than the maximum recited size. And because the current state of the art does not 

allow for a device comprising the recited elements to function when it is reduced to 

microscopic sizes, DeCurtis argues that “undue experimentation” would be required 

to achieve such tiny embodiments. So, in DeCurtis’ view, this claim is invalid for lack 

of enablement.

This argument has more appeal, but it ultimately fails because it does not fully 

appreciate that the portable guest device’s claimed size is subject to an inherent limit. 

See, e.g., Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 

2007) (“[O]pen ended claims are not inherently improper . . . . [t]hey may be supported 

if there is an inherent, albeit not precisely known, upper limit and the specification 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 29 of 38
30

enables one of skill in the art to approach that limit.”). Put differently, a POSITA 

would readily understand that there is an inherent lower limit to the size of a device 

comprising two antennas, a battery, a processor, and a memory. And that 

understanding is consistent with the intrinsic evidence because the invention clearly 

contemplates a portable guest device that is small enough to be conveniently carried 

yet not so small that it could be lost in the palm of a guest’s hand. Therefore, so long 

as the specification enables a POSITA to approach that limit without undue 

experimentation, this claim is not invalid for lack of enablement.

The recognition of an inherent limit in turn prompts the question: what is the 

inherent limit associated with this claim and can a person skilled in the art approach 

that limit without undue experimentation? But the record indicates that the answer 

to this question – an answer that undoubtedly qualifies as a material fact – is subject 

to a genuine dispute. For example, the patent’s specification makes clear that nearzero values for the diameter or thickness of the portable guest device were not 

intended to fall within the claimed range (i.e., less than 2.5 inches in diameter and 

equal to or less than 5/8 inches in thickness) because the claim was intended to 

encompass a “reasonable range” that was “customary” in the art. [D.E. 205-4 at 

39:23-29]. By contrast, DeCurtis’ expert opines that the state of the art would allow 

for the creation of a device no larger than 1.1093 inches wide and 0.3937 inches thick. 

Therefore, DeCurtis’ motion for summary judgment should be DENIED based on the 

existence of a genuinely disputed material fact as to this issue. Certainly, it cannot 

be granted as a matter of law in DeCurtis’ favor without a definitive factual finding.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 30 of 38
31

DeCurtis’ next argument as to Claim 11 fares no 

better because it again violates what DeCurtis itself 

considers a “blackletter principle” of claim construction: 

the claim generally should not be limited to its preferred 

embodiment. [D.E. 201 at 18] (citing Liebel-Flarsheim Co., 

358 F.3d at 906). To reiterate, the Court is confident that 

this claim can be readily understood according to its plain 

and ordinary meaning. Therefore, DeCurtis’ attempt to 

limit this claim to its illustrated description (shown here) 

appears to be nothing more than a naked attempt to 

manufacture an infringement defense through an 

unnecessarily specific claim construction. 

For example, the claim itself makes no mention of the BLE antenna’s shape. 

By contrast, the figures cited by DeCurtis illustrate a J-shaped BLE antenna. See, 

e.g., ‘514 patent, Figure 5D. Accordingly, Carnival was quick to note that DeCurtis’ 

portable guest device, which allegedly infringes on Carnival’s patent, does not feature 

a J-shaped antenna. Nevertheless, DeCurtis has failed to persuade the Court that 

this claim requires any additional construction or should otherwise be limited to the 

embodiments disclosed in the specification. Thus, the Court finds that no 

construction is necessary; the claim should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.

 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 31 of 38
Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 32 of 38
33

quotations omitted). To overcome the presumption of patent validity, a challenger 

must establish inadequate written description by clear and convincing evidence. 

Intirtool, Ltd. v. Texar Corp., 369 F.3d 1289, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

The patent claims a processor that is configured to establish “secure 

communication links” with remote communication devices, and the specification 

discloses an embodiment wherein that “secure” communication link is achieved 

through an encryption protocol. [D.E. 205-4 at 15:5-31]. DeCurtis’ expert opines that 

a POSITA would know other methods for establishing a “secure” communication link 

beyond the encryption protocol taught in the specification. As such, DeCurtis argues 

that the claim is invalid for lacking written description support because these other 

methods are not taught in the specification. But this argument should be rejected 

because the Federal Circuit has repeatedly warned against confining claims to cover 

only the disclosed embodiments absent unusual circumstances. See Phillips, 415 F.3d 

at 1323; Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Our 

case law is clear that an applicant is not required to describe in the specification every 

conceivable and possible future embodiment of his invention.”). 

Here, it is obvious from a review of the four corners of the specification that 

“secure” is not synonymous with “encrypted”; by contrast, the specification makes 

clear that encryption is merely one disclosed method of establishing the secure 

communication link. And because the specification teaches a method for creating 

secure communication links, which is a claimed component of Carnival’s invention, 

the specification conveys that Carnival had possession of the claimed invention at the 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 33 of 38
Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 34 of 38
35

software application presents a set of user-selectable database fields[.]” 874 F.3d at 

1315 (emphasis added). Similarly, in UltimatePointer, the disputed language claimed 

“a handheld device including: an image sensor, said image sensor generating data[.]” 

816 F.3d at 826 (emphasis added). Reading those claims in context, the Federal 

Circuit held that the claims recited each respective device’s functional capability –

i.e., a reporting module capable of presenting database fields; an image sensor 

capable of generating data. According to DeCurtis, however, the foregoing language 

is distinguishable from this disputed claim because the foregoing language first 

introduces a structural limitation (i.e., “a reporting module” in MasterMine and an 

“image sensor” in UltimatePointer) and then repeats that structural limitation in a 

separate phrase with an active verb (i.e., the reporting module “presents” and the 

image sensor “generat[es]”). 

Here, argues DeCurtis, this claim does not recite “a memory, wherein the 

memory stores” and that distinction sufficiently distinguishes this claim from those 

at issue in MasterMine and UltimatePointer – cases wherein the Federal Circuit

relied heavily on the respective claims’ sentence structures to hold that the claims 

recited a capability of the invention. But DeCurtis’ argument misses the mark 

because this claim clearly recites, in language that would be easily understood by a 

POSITA as well as a lay juror, that the invention includes “[a] portable wireless 

device comprising . . . a memory . . . wherein . . . the memory stores both public and 

private identifiers unique to the portable wireless device[.]” 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 35 of 38
36

Hence, we find it appropriate to read this claim according to its plain and 

ordinary meaning and to construe it as reciting a memory that is capable of 

performing the recited function (i.e., the storage of unique identifiers). MasterMine, 

874 F.3d at 1315-16 (“Though claim 8 includes active verbs—presents, receives, and 

generates—these verbs represent permissible functional language used to describe 

capabilities of the reporting module. Like the claims in . . . UltimatePointer, the 

claims at issue here merely claim that the system possesses the recited structure 

which is capable of performing the recited functions.”) (internal quotations omitted 

and alterations adopted). 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Carnival’s motion [D.E. 205] for opening claim 

construction should be GRANTED, thereby construing the claims as summarized 

below, and DeCurtis’ redacted motion for summary judgment [D.E. 203] (and its

sealed version at [D.E. 236]) should be DENIED. 

A. The “storing a log” term from claim 1 and claim 7 of the ‘184 patent 

should be read according to its plain and ordinary meaning; no 

construction is necessary.

B. The “storing a log” term from claim 11 of the ‘184 patent should be read 

according to its plain and ordinary meaning; no construction is 

necessary.

C. The “radio” term from claim 1 of the ‘184 patent and claim 13 of the ‘516 

patent should be read according to its plain and ordinary meaning, 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 36 of 38
37

provided that the radio is understood to be a physical component of the 

access panel.

D. The “second transceiver” term from claim 1 of the ‘184 patent and claim 

13 of the ‘516 patent should be read according to its plain and ordinary 

meaning, provided that the second transceiver may be wired or wireless.

E. The “reservation server” term from claim 2 of the ‘184 patent and claim 

13 of the ‘516 patent should be read according to its plain and ordinary 

meaning; no construction is necessary.

F. The “each sensor” term from claim 11 of the ‘184 patent should be read 

according to its plain and ordinary meaning, provided it is understood 

that “each sensor” means “each BLE sensor.”

G. The “portable wireless device” term from claim 11 of the ‘514 patent 

should be read according to its plain and ordinary meaning; no 

construction is necessary.

H. The “processor configured” term from claim 11 of the ‘514 patent should 

be read according to its plain and ordinary meaning; no construction is 

necessary.

I. The “memory stores” term from claim 11 of the ‘514 patent should be 

read according to its plain and ordinary meaning, provided that the 

claim recites a memory capable of performing the recited function.

Pursuant to Local Magistrate Rule 4(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73, the parties have 

fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and Recommendation within which to 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 37 of 38
38

file written objections, if any, with the District Judge. Failure to timely file objections 

shall bar the parties from de novo determination by the District Judge of any factual 

or legal issue covered in the Report and shall bar the parties from challenging on 

appeal the District Judge’s Order based on any unobjected-to factual or legal 

conclusions included in the Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; see, e.g., 

Patton v. Rowell, 2017 WL 443634 (11th Cir. Feb. 2, 2017); Cooley v. Commissioner 

of Social Security, 2016 WL 7321208 (11th Cir. Dec. 16, 2016).

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 22d day of 

March, 2022. 

/s/ Edwin G. Torres 

 EDWIN G. TORRES

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 267 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2022 Page 38 of 38