United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

METTLER-TOLEDO, INC., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

B-TEK SCALES, LLC, 

Defendant-Cross Appellant. 

__________________________ 

2011-1173, -1200 

__________________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Texas in case no. 06-CV-0097, 

Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin. 

___________________________ 

Decided: February 8, 2012 

___________________________ 

JAMES L. KWAK, Standley Law Group, LLP, of Dublin, 

Ohio, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the 

brief were JEFFREY S. STANDLEY and F. MICHAEL SPEED,

JR. 

RICHARD H. TILGHMAN, IV, Ungaretti & Harris, LLP, 

of Chicago, Illinois, argued for defendant-cross appellant. 

With him on the brief were F. THOMAS HECHT, RICHARD C.

HIMELHOCH and LISA C. SULLIVAN. 

__________________________ 
METTLER-TOLEDO v. B-TEK SCALES 2

Before BRYSON, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. 

MOORE, Circuit Judge. 

Mettler-Toledo, Inc. (Mettler) filed suit accusing BTek Scales, LLC (B-Tek) of infringing claims of U.S. 

patent nos. 4,815,547 (’547 patent) and 4,804,052 (’052 

patent). After the district court construed the claims, a 

jury determined that the claims of the ’547 patent were 

not infringed and that the claims of the ’052 patent were 

both not infringed and invalid. Mettler appeals the 

district court’s denial of Judgment as a Matter of Law 

(JMOL) for each of these determinations. Because the 

district court correctly construed the claims of the ’547 

patent and because substantial evidence supports the 

jury’s verdict of invalidity of the ’052 patent, we affirm. 

Cross-Appellant B-Tek appeals the district court’s denial of sanctions for alleged withholding and destruction 

of relevant documents. Because the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in determining that the documents 

were not highly relevant and that there was little harm to 

B-Tek, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

The ’547 and ’052 patents relate to technology for 

weighing objects, such as large commercial trucks. The 

’547 patent describes an individual load cell that is one of 

several cells used in a scale. The cell produces an electrical signal in response to being deformed by an external 

force such as an object to be weighed. The ’052 patent 

describes a system and method for measuring the weight 

of moveable objects on a scale. Specifically, the patent 

discloses a system for correcting weight measurements 

based on the location of objects on a scale. For example, 

an object placed at one end of a scale may exert more 

pressure on the weight sensors positioned at that end 
3 METTLER-TOLEDO v. B-TEK SCALES

than an identical object placed in the center. The ’052 

patent describes correcting for this load position so that 

the same total weight will be determined regardless of the 

placement of the object. 

Mettler sued B-Tek alleging infringement of certain 

claims of the ’547 and ’052 patents. The district court 

construed the claims and the case proceeded to trial 

where the jury found that B-Tek did not infringe any of 

the asserted claims of the ’547 and ’052 patents. The jury 

also determined that the asserted claims of the ’052 

patent would have been obvious. Mettler filed a motion 

for JMOL on both the infringement and invalidity issues, 

which the court denied. Mettler appeals the district 

court’s denial of its motion for JMOL for both patents. BTek cross appeals the district court’s denial of sanctions. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 

DISCUSSION

We apply the law of the regional circuit when reviewing a denial of JMOL. Union Carbide Chems. & Plastics 

Tech. Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 425 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. 

Cir. 2005); WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 

F.3d 1339, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In the Fifth Circuit, 

JMOL is appropriate if the facts and inferences point so 

strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that a 

reasonable jury could not have concluded otherwise. 

Armendariz v. Pinkerton Tobacco Co., 58 F.3d 144, 148 

(5th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). “There must be a 

conflict in substantial evidence to create a jury question.” 

Id. We have interpreted this standard to mean that a 

jury’s determination must be supported by substantial 

evidence. Acco Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks Mfrs. Co., 501 

F.3d 1307, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We review claim 

construction de novo. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 

F.3d 1448, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). The words 
METTLER-TOLEDO v. B-TEK SCALES 4

of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill 

in the art when read in the context of the specification 

and prosecution history. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 

F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 

I. ’547 Patent 

The ’547 patent describes a load cell for measuring a 

force. ’547 patent col.1 ll.51-53. The cell utilizes a 

counterforce attached to a circuit board illustrated in 

figure 5: 

The circuit includes strain gauges 75, 76, 79 and 80 

which, via a bridge circuit, create an analog electrical 

signal related to an object’s weight. Id. col.4 ll.62-66. 

This analog signal is converted to a digital signal by 

“multiple slope integrating analog-to-digital (A/D) converter 100.” Id. col.5 ll.1-2. This digital signal is then 

sent to microprocessor 105. Id. col.5 ll.9-15. Claim 1 is 

illustrative of the asserted claims: 

Weighing apparatus comprising a counterforce, 

transducer means mounted on said counterforce, 
5 METTLER-TOLEDO v. B-TEK SCALES

circuit means associated with said counterforce, 

said circuit means being responsive to external 

control and including means for producing digital 

representations of loads applied to said counterforce, 

means for applying at least one correction factor 

to said digital representations and means for 

transmitting said digital representations, 

means providing a sealed enclosure for said 

transducer means and said circuit means, 

means providing a path through said enclosure 

means for external communication with said circuit means. 

The district court construed a number of the means-plusfunction claim terms including the terms in dispute: 

“circuit means associated with said counterforce, said 

circuit means being responsive to external control,” 

“means for producing digital representations of loads 

applied to said counterforce,” and “means for transmitting 

said digital representations.” It held that, for each of 

these terms, the associated structure in the specification 

includes the multiple slope integrating A/D converter, and 

equivalents thereof. For example, for the term “means for 

producing digital representations of loads applied to said 

counterforce,” the district court held that the corresponding structure was “a multiple slope integrating analog-todigital (A/D) converter, and equivalents thereof.” MettlerToledo, Inc. v. Fairbanks Scales Inc., 551 F. Supp. 2d 576, 

598 (E.D. Tex. 2008). 

In the accused products, the A/D converter is a deltasigma A/D converter. The jury determined that the 

accused products did not infringe either literally or under 

the doctrine of equivalents. In its JMOL motion, Mettler 
METTLER-TOLEDO v. B-TEK SCALES 6

argued that the delta-sigma A/D converter is equivalent 

to the multiple slope integrating A/D converter. The 

district court held that substantial evidence supported the 

jury’s verdict that they were not equivalent pointing to 

trial testimony by B-Tek’s expert and a corporate representative from another defendant that there are substantial differences between the two types of converters. 

On appeal, Mettler limits its arguments to a single 

claim construction issue: whether the district court improperly construed the relevant claim terms to require a 

multiple slope integrating A/D converter rather than any 

generic A/D converter. Mettler argues that the district 

court erred by importing the structure of only the preferred embodiment or best mode of the disclosure into the 

claim. It contends that A/D converters are well-known in 

the art and that there was no reason to limit the structure 

to only the multiple slope integrating A/D converter. It 

further points to figure 5 that illustrates an “Analog to 

Digital Converter 100”. It argues that this shows that the 

specification discloses generic A/D converters as well as 

the more specific multiple slope integrating embodiment. 

Mettler contends that the Abstract, by mentioning a 

generic A/D converter, supports its broad construction. 

Finally, Mettler points out that the district court applied 

a different construction for the ’052 patent, holding that a 

generic A/D converter is included in the claim term’s 

construction. It argues that the two patent specifications 

are very similar and both disclose a generic A/D converter 

linked to the claimed functions. 

Citing Medical Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. 

v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2003), B-Tek 

responds that the patent never links a generic A/D converter to the claimed functions. It points out that the A/D 

converter shown in figure 5 is only referred to in the 

specification as “multiple slope integrating analog-to-
7 METTLER-TOLEDO v. B-TEK SCALES

digital (A/D) converter 100.” ’547 patent col.5 ll.1-2. It 

argues that every mention of a converter in the specification refers back to this specific type of converter. 

We agree with the district court that the appropriate 

structure for the disputed means-plus-function claim 

elements in the ’547 patent is the multiple slope integrating A/D converter and equivalents thereof. Our case law 

is clear that a means-plus-function claim limitation is 

limited to the structures disclosed in the specification and 

equivalents. Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics, 344 

F.3d at 1210. A court must look to the specification to 

determine the structures that correspond to the claimed 

function. “[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is 

‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to 

the function recited in the claim.” B. Braun Med. Inc. v. 

Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If a 

patentee chooses to disclose a single embodiment, then 

any means-plus-function claim limitation will be limited 

to the single disclosed structure and equivalents thereof. 

See Nomos Corp. v. Brainlab U.S.A., Inc., 357 F.3d 1364, 

1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

The ’547 patent discloses a single embodiment for the 

claimed invention that uses a multiple slope integrating 

A/D converter. In every instance where the specification 

refers to an “A/D converter”, see, e.g., ’547 patent col.5 

l.14, it is referring to the preferred embodiment, which 

only includes the multiple slope integrating A/D converter 

100. Although generic A/D converters were known in the 

art, the patentee chose to use means-plus-function language which limits it to the disclosed embodiments and 

equivalents. While Mettler argues that the district court 

erred by limiting it to the “best mode,” the best mode was 

also the only structure disclosed in the specification. 
METTLER-TOLEDO v. B-TEK SCALES 8

We are not persuaded that the single statement in the 

Abstract regarding an “A/D converter” requires a different 

result. This disclosure is not linked to any claimed function as required by our precedent, and therefore does not 

support a broader construction. B. Braun Med., 124 F.3d 

at 1424. Further, the district court’s different construction in the ’052 patent is not at odds with its construction 

in the ’547 patent. While the two patent specifications 

are very similar, the ’052 patent differs in an important 

way: in the Summary of the Invention, the ’052 patent 

mentions a generic A/D converter and links it to the 

claimed function. ’052 patent col.2 ll.21-24. Mettler 

relied on this language in its claim construction argument 

for the ’052 patent. The district court correctly held that 

the ’052 patent linked a generic A/D converter to the 

claimed function. In contrast, the ’547 patent does not 

include this language and is thus limited to the only A/D 

converter that it discloses—the multiple slope integrating 

A/D converter. The district court correctly held that the 

multiple slope integrating A/D converter was the only 

converter disclosed by the ’547 patent and linked to the 

claimed functions. Therefore, we affirm the district 

court’s denial of JMOL of infringement. 

II. ’052 Patent 

The ’052 patent teaches a system and method for correctly measuring the weight of an object regardless of 

where that object sits on the scale. ’052 patent col.6 ll.28-

42. This system is particularly useful when measuring 

the weight of trucks or other large equipment because the 

load will rarely be positioned identically from one measurement to the next. The system includes a number of 

load cells (like the one described in the ’547 patent) arranged around a scale. Depending on the location of the 

load to be weighed, these cells will indicate different 

weights. The system is calibrated to create an equation 
9 METTLER-TOLEDO v. B-TEK SCALES

that allows for correction for the differing load positions 

so that regardless of the load position, the same weight 

will be measured. Id. col.6 ll.52-60. 

The jury found that the ’052 patent was both invalid 

for obviousness and not infringed. The district court 

denied Mettler’s JMOL motions on both issues. Claim 1 

is illustrative: 

Weighing apparatus comprising a plurality of load 

cells, 

load receiving means supported by said load cells, 

means associated with said load cells for providing 

a digital representation of a load on each load cell, 

means for storing a mathematical expression for 

load corrected for load position, and 

means for applying said mathematical expression 

to said digital load representations to produce a 

digital representation of the total load on said 

load receiving means corrected for load position. 

Claim 7 is a similar method drawn to “compensating a 

multiple load cell scale for load position.” 

The jury returned a verdict that the asserted claims 

would have been obvious. On appeal, Mettler argues that 

JMOL should have been granted because GB 1,462,808 

(Avery) does not teach correcting for load position, which 

is a limitation of each asserted claim. Appellant’s Br. 30. 

What is disclosed by a prior art reference is a question of 

fact. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 

1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Upjohn Co. v. Mova Pharm. Corp., 

225 F.3d 1306, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2000). And given the jury 

verdict of obviousness, we must presume that the jury 

found the facts that support its determination. Upjohn, 

225 F.3d at 1310. We conclude that substantial evidence 
METTLER-TOLEDO v. B-TEK SCALES 10

supports the jury determination that Avery teaches 

correcting for load position. 

Avery discloses a system using several transducers to 

measure a single load. J.A. 7861 ll.52-61. Using calibration data (which may be an equation), the system corrects 

for an “unevenly loaded” scale. Id. This is sufficient for a 

jury to find that it discloses correcting for a load position. 

Moving a load to one end of a scale rather than the center 

would amount to “uneven loading.” Further, B-Tek’s 

expert testified that Avery disclosed this feature, thus 

providing more evidence on which the jury could rely. 

Referring only to claim 7, Mettler argues another factual issue—whether Avery teaches away from the claimed 

invention. Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 649 F.3d 

1336, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that whether the 

prior art teaches away from the claimed invention is a 

questions of fact). Mettler contends that claim 7 of the 

’052 patent explicitly requires “compensating a multiple 

load cell scale,” but the Avery reference teaches away 

from the claimed invention stating “because the transducer signals are corrected or adjusted individually . . . 

the combined output need not be corrected to compensate 

for uneven loading.” J.A. 7862 ll.69-74. 

Read in context, there is substantial evidence for the 

jury’s conclusion that Avery does not teach away. Claim 7 

requires “compensating a multiple load cell scale.” While 

Avery states that it eliminates the need to “compensate 

for uneven loading,” it is clearly discussing the timing and 

location of any adjustments or corrections. In Avery, each 

individual transducer (or load cell) is individually corrected for “uneven loading.” This means that when each 

transducer measurement is considered together, there is 

no need for additional compensation. Claim 7 of the ’052 

patent clearly covers this type of correction. It requires 1) 
11 METTLER-TOLEDO v. B-TEK SCALES

determining a mathematical expression, 2) interrogating 

each load cell (or transducer in Avery) to receive a “digital 

load representation,” and 3) “applying said mathematical 

expression to said digital load representations.” This 

encompasses correcting each individual reading or an 

overall reading. Thus, Avery does not teach away from 

the claimed invention.1 Mettler also argues that Avery 

fails to teach moving a weight around the scale to calibrate the system. Because the claims do not require 

moving a weight around the scale, Avery need not expressly teach this particular calibration technique. We 

affirm the district court’s denial of JMOL on the nonobviousness of the ‘052 patent. 

III. Cross-Appeal 

B-Tek cross-appeals the district court’s denial of sanctions for alleged discovery abuses by Mettler. We apply 

the law of the regional circuit when considering the denial 

of sanctions. ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, 

Inc., 560 F.3d 1291, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Fifth Circuit 

precedent requires that we review the district court’s 

order for an abuse of discretion. Id. A district court 

abuses its discretion when its “ruling is based on an 

erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id. Fact findings are not 

clearly erroneous unless “the reviewing court on the 

 1 B-Tek responds to an argument that Mettler did 

not put forth in its opening brief—that Avery fails to 

disclose the equation from the ’052 patent that the court 

construed to be a part of a means-plus-function limitation. 

Avery discloses that “[t]he calibration data may, for 

example, be in the form of factors to be multiplied and/or 

algebraically summated with the respective transducer 

output.” Avery p.2 ll.45-50. This amounts to substantial 

evidence because it is simply a prosaic description of the 

equation disclosed in the ’052 patent. 
METTLER-TOLEDO v. B-TEK SCALES 12

entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Anderson v. 

City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985). 

In order to develop its case rebutting lost profits damages, B-Tek requested documents related to Mettler’s 

manufacturing capacity. Mettler stated that it had no 

such documents. During trial, a Mettler employee admitted that certain documents existed—a production schedule and a plant diagram—and that some of these 

documents had been destroyed. Further, Mettler admitted that it provided some of these documents to its own 

damages expert during the preparation of its case showing that Mettler appreciated the documents’ relevance. BTek moved for sanctions, including attorney’s fees. The 

district court denied the motion. It noted that Mettler did 

not hide the documents because Mettler’s representative, 

in a deposition, spoke about manufacturing capability and 

mentioned the production schedule. Further, the district 

court found that the documents were not particularly 

relevant, stating: 

Production schedules are, as the court understands them, merely an ever-changing, real-time 

representation of Mettler-Toledo’s backlog, and 

unlikely to provide much, if any, relevant information about manufacturing capacity. Nor does 

the court see how a physical layout diagram of the 

Masstron facility would be relevant. 

J.A. 170. The district court also noted that B-Tek could 

not show the requisite harm or prejudice because “[B-Tek] 

ultimately prevailed at trial on the issue of infringement” 

so it did not have to rely on its damages case. Id. Thus, 

the court held “assuming there was a discovery violation 

at all, which is somewhat doubtful, it does not rise to the 

level of sanctionable behavior under Rule 37.” Id.
13 METTLER-TOLEDO v. B-TEK SCALES

We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion. It correctly considered the relevance of the documents and any harm to B-Tek due to the withholding. 

The district court determined that the documents in 

question were, at best, only somewhat relevant. The 

court also concluded that there was no harm to B-Tek. BTek cannot point to any “erroneous view of the law or [ ] a 

clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence” and, thus, 

we affirm. ClearValue, 560 F.3d at 1304. 

AFFIRMED 

COSTS

No costs.