NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

LESEMAN, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

STRATASYS, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2017-1453

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Minnesota in No. 0:14-cv-00363-SRN-SER, 

Judge Susan Richard Nelson.

______________________ 

Decided: April 18, 2018 

______________________ 

 DEVAN V. PADMANABHAN, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, 

Minneapolis, MN, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also 

represented by PAUL J. ROBBENNOLT, SRI SANKARAN,

NADEEM WILLIAM SCHWEN. 

 TIMOTHY E. GRIMSRUD, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, 

Minneapolis, MN, argued for defendant-appellee. Also 

represented by KENNETH LIEBMAN, KATHERINE S. RAZAVI,

LAUREN MARIE WILLIAMS STEINHAEUSER. 

______________________ 
2 LESEMAN, LLC v. STRATASYS, INC. 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit 

Judges.

MOORE, Circuit Judge. 

Leseman, LLC, appeals the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Minnesota’s final judgment of noninfringement based on the court’s construction of two 

terms in claims 1–3 of U.S. Patent No. 7,329,113 (’113 

patent). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the 

final judgment.

BACKGROUND

The ’113 patent is directed to an extrusion die with 

die components “that are adjustable along a longitudinal 

axis in which the material being extruded travels.” ’113 

patent at 1:10–13. During extrusion, a substrate and an 

extrusion material converge in a channel of an extrusion 

die, which causes the extrusion material to coat a surface 

of the substrate. Id. at 1:38–43. According to the ’113 

patent, “the configuration of the extrusion die channel [is] 

generally fixed along the longitudinal axis in which the 

substrate and the extrusion material flow,” so the die 

must be retooled or the flow settings of the extrusion 

material adjusted to change the properties of an extrusion. Id. at 1:38–40, 1:60–2:9.

To overcome this perceived problem, the ’113 patent 

discloses an extrusion die with die components that are 

adjustable along the longitudinal axis. Id. at 1:10–13, 

6:49–55. The exemplary die includes a first die component, a second die component received within a downstream side of the first die component, and a third die 

component received within a downstream side of the 

second die component. Id. at 3:24–26, 4:1–2, 4:44–45. 

The relative positions of the second and third die components are adjustable along the longitudinal axis. Id. at 

4:2–16, 4:45–60. This adjustability permits changes to 
LESEMAN, LLC v. STRATASYS, INC. 3

the flow of the extrusion material without having to retool 

or replace the die or change the properties of the extrusion material. Id. at 6:49–55. As a result, it “reduc[es] 

the time required to develop a suitable extrusion die to 

form a new product and to adapt to changing extrusion 

materials.” Id. at 6:55–58.

Leseman sued Stratasys, Inc., alleging infringement

of claims 1–3 of the ’113 patent. Claim 1 is representative 

and recites: 

1. An extrusion die assembly configured to process a flow of extrusion material traveling in a 

downstream direction, the assembly comprising:

a first die component having a first channel substantially coaxial to a longitudinal 

axis;

a second die component received within a 

downstream side of the first die component and having a position that is adjustable along the longitudinal axis relative to 

the first die component, the second die 

component having a second channel that 

is substantially coaxial to the longitudinal 

axis; and

a third die component received within a 

downstream side of the second die component and having a position that is adjustable along the longitudinal axis relative to 

the second die component, the third die 

component having a third channel that is 

substantially coaxial to the longitudinal 

axis.

Following the district court’s claim construction orders, the parties stipulated to non-infringement of claims 

1–3. Leseman appeals the court’s judgment on the 
4 LESEMAN, LLC v. STRATASYS, INC. 

grounds that its constructions were erroneous. We have 

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

DISCUSSION

Because the district court did not make any subsidiary fact findings, we review its constructions de novo. 

David Netzer Consulting Eng’r LLC v. Shell Oil Co., 824 

F.3d 989, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The words of a claim “are 

generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” 

which is “the meaning that the term would have to a 

person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time 

of the invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 

1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). To determine the 

ordinary meaning, we look to the claim language, the 

specification, the prosecution history, and, where necessary, extrinsic evidence. Id. at 1314, 1319.

The parties dispute whether the claims cover an extrusion die where the relative positions of the die components can be changed, but only after disassembling the 

extrusion die. To argue that they do so, Leseman points 

to “adjustable” and “and” within the term “a [second/third] die component received within a downstream 

side of the [first/second] die component and having a 

position that is adjustable along the longitudinal axis 

relative to the [first/second] die component.” The district 

court construed “adjustable” to mean “movable, without 

removal of the [second/third] die component.” Leseman, 

LLC v. Stratasys, Inc., No. 14-cv-363, 2016 WL 6871372, 

at *9 (D. Minn. May 17, 2016). It construed “and” to 

require that the [second/third] die component remain 

“received within a downstream side” of the [first/second] 

die component “before, during, and after adjustment.” 

J.A. 53–54. Leseman argues these constructions depart

from the ordinary meaning of the claim language. 

We agree with the district court’s constructions and

hold that the claims require that the [second/third] die 

component be movable, without removal from the down-
LESEMAN, LLC v. STRATASYS, INC. 5

stream side of the [first/second] die component. The 

preamble to claim 1, which both parties agree is limiting, 

J.A. 137, requires “[a]n extrusion die assembly configured 

to process a flow of extrusion material traveling in a 

downstream direction.” The “assembly” comprises a 

second and third die component having adjustable positions. This language requires that the positions of these 

die components be movable while the extrusion die remains assembled. Assembled in this context includes that 

the [second/third] die component be “received within” a 

downstream side of the [first/second] die component. The 

phrase “along the longitudinal axis,” which modifies 

“adjustable,” further supports this construction. This 

phrase does not merely require looking at the positions of 

the die components both before and after an adjustment. 

Instead, “along the longitudinal axis” indicates the manner in which an adjustment occurs. That is, the die 

components remain on the longitudinal axis during and 

after adjustment. Further, the word “and” is conjunctive, 

meaning the [second/third] die component must both be 

“received within a downstream side of the [first/second]

die component and hav[e] a position that is adjustable 

along the longitudinal axis relative to the first die component.” We conclude that the claims require that the 

[second/third] die component be movable without removal 

from the downstream side of the [first/second] die component.

Leseman argues the die components are “adjustable 

along the longitudinal axis” if the extrusion die can be 

disassembled and the positions of the second and third die 

components can be switched or additional components can 

be inserted between the die components. But these are 

the types of “time-consuming” modifications to the extrusion die that the specification criticizes. See ’113 patent 

at 7:47–53. The specification states that the ability to 

adjust the relative positions of the die components along 

the longitudinal axis allows the flow properties of the 
6 LESEMAN, LLC v. STRATASYS, INC. 

extrusion material to be controlled without having to 

retool or replace the die. Id. at 6:49–55; id. at 7:47–53; see 

also id. at 4:5–13, 4:48–57. The specification’s use of 

“present invention” language to distinguish its extrusion 

die from those that require retooling or replacement 

further confirms this conclusion. Id. at 6:49–55; id. at 

7:47–53. This language is strong evidence that the claims 

should not be read to cover such retooling or replacement. 

See SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular 

Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The 

specification thus supports the conclusion that die components “adjustable along the longitudinal axis” are limited 

to those that are movable along the longitudinal axis 

without removal from the downstream side of the previous die component. The modifications that Leseman 

seeks to encompass within the claims are more akin to the 

retooling or replacement criticized in the specification and 

are not part of the scope of the claims.

We find Leseman’s remaining arguments unpersuasive. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district 

court’s final judgment that Stratasys does not infringe

claims 1–3 of the ’113 patent.

AFFIRMED