UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS TIRE 

OPERATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. No. 4:22-cv-00145-P

SPEEDWAYS TYRES LIMITED, ET AL.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER REGARDING 

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

Before the Court are the Parties’ claim construction briefs. ECF Nos. 

140, 144, 146. Having considered the briefing, relevant docket entries, 

and applicable law, the Court adopts the constructions listed at the end 

of this Order.

ASERTED PATENT DESCRIPTION

Bridgestone asserts U.S. Patent No. 9,873,291 (the “’291 Patent”), 

which is entitled “Irrigation tire” and “relates to non-directional 

pneumatic tires designed to support agricultural irrigation systems.”

’291 Patent at 1:7–10. The patent describes that conventional tires for 

off-road vehicles have a preferred direction, e.g., forward, “which 

corresponds into a specific preferred direction of rotation designed 

directly into the prior art ‘off-road’ tires.” Id. at 1:24–29. As such, 

conventional tires perform “significantly better” in the preferred 

direction than in the non-preferred direction. Id. at 1:33–36. As the ’291 

Patent explains, this “leads to tire designs having characteristics, such 

as tread pattern, that cause the tire to specifically perform better when 

the tire is rotated in a specific direction.” Id. at 1:29–33.

The tires on agricultural vehicles, by contrast, are “design[ed] to 

traverse the ground with substantial similarity in both forward and 

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 1 of 41 PageID 8632
2

backward directions (i.e., non-directional tires).” Id. at 1:56–60. The 

patent describes that for a “substantial portion of agricultural devices

... it is undesirable for the agricultural device to substantially alter the 

ground upon which they move.” Id. at 1:62–67. Put differently, farmers 

are typically less-than-thrilled when their plowed fields get messed up. 

Enter the ’291 Patent, which achieves the above design goals with a 

tread pattern that includes two or more longitudinal protrusions.1 Id. at 

2:61–64. Figures 1 and 2 show exemplary longitudinal protrusions

(signposted as #34). Id. at 4:36–39.

Figures 1 and 2 show that the longitudinal axis—the axis running 

horizontally across each longitudinal protrusion—is parallel to the tire’s 

rotation axis. See id. The figures also show that circumferential 

protrusion 36 runs along the equatorial circumference of the tire (or, in 

English, the middle of the tire’s tread). Id. at 4:46–49.

Figure 5, below, views the tire from the top and shows longitudinal 

protrusions 34A and 34B and circumferential protrusion 36, as well as 

protrusion axis 44. Id. at 5:36–38.

1 The patent also refers to various elements of a tread pattern, e.g., longitudinal 

protrusions, as “lugs.” ’291 Patent at 1:42–45.

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 2 of 41 PageID 8633
3

Figure 5 also depicts that the longitudinal protrusions have first bulge 

46 and second bulge 48 in this embodiment. Id. at 5:45–47.

LEGAL STANDARD

A. General principles

As a general rule, claim terms are given their plain-and-ordinary 

meaning. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 

(en banc); see also Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 

1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014), vacated on other grounds, 575 U.S. 959, 959 (2015) 

(“There is a heavy presumption that claim terms carry their accustomed 

meaning in the relevant community at the relevant time.”). A term’s

plain-and-ordinary meaning 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, 415 F.3d at 1313.

But general rules wouldn’t be general rules if they didn’t have 

exceptions. The “plain-and-ordinary meaning rule” has two: (1) when the 

patentee acts as his/her own lexicographer, or (2) when the patentee 

disavows the full scope of the claim term either in the specification or 

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 3 of 41 PageID 8634
4

during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 

1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). While the patentee gets to define terms as 

he or she sees fit, the Federal Circuit has counseled that “[t]he standards 

for finding lexicography and disavowal are exacting.” Hill-Rom Servs., 

Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). To act as 

his/her own lexicographer, the patentee must “clearly set forth a 

definition of the disputed claim term” and “‘clearly express an intent’ to 

[define] the term.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365.

“Like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of 

how the [Patent and Trademark Office] and the inventor understood the 

patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. “[B]y distinguishing the claimed 

invention over the prior art, an applicant is indicating what a claim does 

not cover.” Spectrum Int’l, Inc. v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d 1372, 1379 

(Fed. Cir. 1998) (internal quotations omitted). The doctrine of 

prosecution disclaimer precludes a patentee from recapturing a specific 

meaning that was previously disclaimed during prosecution. Omega 

Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “[F]or 

prosecution disclaimer to attach, our precedent requires that the alleged 

disavowing actions or statements made during prosecution be both clear 

and unmistakable.” Id. at 1325–26. Accordingly, when “an applicant’s 

statements are amenable to multiple reasonable interpretations, they 

cannot be deemed clear and unmistakable.” 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. 

Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The policy behind 

this rule is clear: because a patentee can’t strategically revisit a meaning 

previously eschewed, disclaimer of the contested meaning must be 

unequivocal. 

A construction of “plain and ordinary meaning” may be inadequate 

when a term has more than one “ordinary” meaning or when reliance on 

a term’s “ordinary” meaning doesn’t resolve the Parties’ dispute. O2 

Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 

(Fed. Cir. 2008). In that case, the Court must describe the plain-andordinary meaning for the relevant terms. Id.

“Although the specification may aid the court in interpreting the 

meaning of disputed claim language . . ., particular embodiments and 

examples appearing in the specification will not generally be read into 

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 4 of 41 PageID 8635
5

the claims.” Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 

1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “[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.”

Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Although extrinsic evidence can help, it is “less significant than the 

intrinsic record in determining ‘the legally operative meaning of claim 

language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quoting C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S.

Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). For instance, 

technical dictionaries can help, but they may provide definitions that 

are too broad or not indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id.

at 1318. Expert testimony can help too, but conclusory or unsupported 

assertions of a term’s meaning don’t. 

B. Indefiniteness

“[I]ndefiniteness is a question of law and in effect part of claim 

construction.” ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 517 

(Fed. Cir. 2012). Patent claims must particularly point out and distinctly 

claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.

A claim, when viewed in light of the intrinsic evidence, must “inform 

those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable 

certainty.” Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 

(2014). If it does not, the claim fails § 112, ¶ 2 and is therefore invalid 

as indefinite. Id. at 901. Whether a claim is indefinite is determined 

from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the 

application was filed. Id. at 911.

ANALYSIS

A. Definiteness of claim terms. 

Defendants say all terms are indefinite and provide alternative 

constructions based upon their “best understanding” if the Court 

disagrees. Bridgestone says Defendants “apply the wrong standard” by 

arguing that each term is indefinite because there is no antecedent basis 

in the specification for these claim elements. ECF No. 140 at 15 (Term 

#2); see also ECF No. 140 at 13 (Term #1), 17 (Term #3), 19 (Term #4), 

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 5 of 41 PageID 8636
6

21 (Term #5), 23 (Term #6), 26 (Term #7), 29 (Term #8), 30 (Term #9).

Bridgestone says the standard for indefiniteness is whether a person of 

ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would understand with reasonable 

certainty the scope of the claim term. See, e.g., id. at 13 (Term #1).

With respect to specific terms, Bridgestone argues the specification 

provides examples of the claim terms. Id. at 13 (citing ’291 Patent at 

Figures 1–5, 8, 9, and 15 with respect to Terms #1, #3), 15 (citing ’291 

Patent at 4:67–5:6, Figure 5 with respect to Term #2), 20 (citing ’291 

Patent at Figure 8 with respect to Terms #4, #5). With respect to Terms

#5, #6, and #7, Bridgestone further argues that, during prosecution, it

submitted an annotated version of Figure 8 that expressly identified 

each element. Id. at 22, 23–24. Finally, with respect to Term #6 (“radius 

of curvature”), Bridgestone contends that Defendants provide extrinsic 

evidence (dictionary definitions) for this term. Id. at 23. Based on the 

above evidence, Bridgestone says Defendants fail to show that a 

POSITA would not understand with reasonable certainty the scope of 

the claim terms. See, e.g., id. at 13.

Defendants argue that “although all the claim terms recited above 

plainly speak of ‘circumference,’ ‘convex,’ or ‘concave,’ plainly requiring 

uniformity of shape around a ‘central axis’ as with an arc or circle, the 

specification does not show that in any instance.” Response at 27. More 

specifically, Defendants argue that:

Plaintiff elected to use exact language to define the scope of 

its patent in its claims; however, nowhere in the 

specification (including particularly the drawings) can one 

find a predicate application of these claim terms, so the 

patent “does not contain an adequate disclosure of the 

structure that corresponds to the claimed function, . . . 

which renders the claim invalid for indefiniteness.”

Id. (emphasis in Defendants’ brief) (quoting Digital Retail Apps, Inc. v. 

H-E-B, LP, No. 6-19-CV-00167, 2020 WL 376664, at *7 (Albright, J.) 

(W.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2020)). 

Bridgestone’s Reply again asserts that Defendants base their 

indefiniteness argument on the wrong legal standard and reiterates the 

POSITA standard. Reply at 1–2 (citing Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910).

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 6 of 41 PageID 8637
7

Bridgestone contends that Nautilus does not require that “the exact 

words of the claims appear in the specification in haec verba.” Id. at 2.

Further, Bridgestone meticulously distinguishes the cases Defendants 

cite to argue the claim terms are indefinite because Bridgestone did not 

use the exact words of each claim term in the specification. Id. With 

respect to Digital Retail Apps, Bridgestone points out that the inquiry 

there was lack of structure under § 112, ¶ 6, not indefiniteness under § 

112, ¶ 2. Id. With respect to Halliburton, Bridgestone contends that the

case stands for “the unremarkable conclusion that a claim term is 

indefinite if ‘neither [patentee’s] proposed definition nor any other 

possible construction resolves the ambiguity in the scope of the term.’”

Id. (quoting Halliburton, 514 F.3d 1250). And with respect to HZNP 

Meds. and St. Isidore, Bridgestone notes both cases ultimately apply the 

Nautilus standard and thus lend no credence to Defendants’ position. 

Id. To top things off, Bridgestone says “Defendants also refuse to 

acknowledge their burden to prove indefiniteness by clear and 

convincing evidence.” Id. at 3.

The Court agrees with Bridgestone that the terms are not indefinite. 

First, Defendants base their indefiniteness argument on the wrong legal 

standard. The proper standard—which Bridgestone endorses—is 

whether a POSITA would understand the scope of the claim terms with 

reasonable certainty. See Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910. To this end, 

Defendants’ reliance on Digital Retail Apps is misplaced because the 

focus there was indefiniteness due to lack of structure under § 112, ¶ 6

(which doesn’t apply), not § 112, ¶ 2 (which does). Defendants thus miss 

the mark vis-à-vis indefiniteness, as their arguments are predicated on 

the wrong legal standard.

Second, even if Defendants had used the right legal standard, they 

don’t show by clear and convincing evidence that a POSITA wouldn’t

understand with reasonable certainty the scope of the claim terms. 

Indeed, Defendants’ entire indefiniteness argument for nine different 

claim terms is a single sentence long. Given the lack of individualized 

argument for each claim term, the Court concludes that, even if 

Defendants used the correct legal standard, Defendants don’t provide 

clear and convincing evidence of indefiniteness.

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 7 of 41 PageID 8638
8

* * *

B. Term #1: “Each longitudinal protrusion being 

circumferentially symmetric about its protrusion axis.”

Claim Term Bridgestone’s 

Proposal

Defendants’ 

Proposal

#1: “Each 

longitudinal 

protrusion being 

circumferentially 

symmetric about its 

protrusion axis”

U.S. Patent No. 

9,873,291, Claim 1

Not indefinite;

Plain and ordinary 

meaning;

In the alternative, 

“circumferentially 

symmetric” means 

“symmetric in the 

circumferential 

direction of the tire.”

Indefinite;

As best understood:

“Circumference”

relates to the 

perimeter of a circle.

“Circumferentially 

symmetric” about its

protrusion axis 

requires a geometric 

figure (such as a 

cylinder or cone) 

having a central axis 

with each radial

point about that axis

having a 

corresponding mirror 

image point (for 

example ... visualize 

a corny dog [shown] 

with the stick being 

its axis and the

remainder of the 

corny dog [hot dog 

and breading] being

circumferentially

symmetric about that

axis; on the other 

hand, shish kabab 

[shown] is not 

circumferentially

symmetric about its

axis).

Bridgestone argues that “circumferentially symmetric” describes 

“the direction of symmetry of the longitudinal protrusions,” namely, that

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 8 of 41 PageID 8639
9

the “longitudinal protrusions are symmetric in the circumferential 

direction of the tire.” ECF No. 140 at 10, 12. Bridgestone contends that

the specification always uses “circumferentially” and “circumferential” 

to “refer to the tire’s circumference, without ever implying any of the 

longitudinal protrusions have a circumference.” Id. at 11 (citing ’291 

Patent at 4:65–5:6 (referring to “circumferential spacing 37” in Figure 

5); 4:46–57 (referring to “circumferential protrusion 36”)). Bridgestone 

asserts that Figures 1–3, 5, and 6 “show [that circumferential protrusion 

36]—unlike the longitudinal protrusions—extends around the 

circumference of the tire.” Id. (citing ’291 Patent at 4:65–5:6).

Bridgestone also asserts the specification describes “a relatively wide 

spacing between the lugs of each row in the circumferential direction[,]” 

which is consistent with figures that show that the lugs are spaced apart 

in the circumferential direction of the tire. Id. (citing ’291 Patent at 

Figure 2).

Bridgestone argues Defendants’ proposed construction—which 

requires that the longitudinal protrusions are cylindrical or conical—

excludes every embodiment in the patent. Id. at 12. Specifically, 

Bridgestone asserts that each embodiment shows that each longitudinal 

protrusion has a flat top surface, and thus is not cylindrical or conical.

Id. The Court agrees.

Defendants’ Response argues that Bridgestone’s alternative 

proposed construction “radically” departs from the plain-and-ordinary 

meaning, demonstrating the need for the Court to construe this term.

ECF No. 144 at 13 (citing O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1360–61). Defendants 

further argue that Bridgestone’s proposed construction “makes no sense 

of the terms and appears manufactured out of whole cloth so that the 

patent will read on [Defendants’] tire.” Id. at 16. To this end, Defendants 

observe that the words “circumferentially symmetric” do not appear in 

the specification. Id. at 14. But Defendants contend that the constituent 

words of the claim term have well-known meanings. Id. at 16, 16 n.4.

For example, Defendants assert that the definition of “circumference” is

“the perimeter of a circle.” Id. at 16 n.4 (citing Algebra 1 For Dummies

249 (2001); CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics 442 (2003)).

Defendants assert that the definition of “axis” is “a line with respect to 

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 9 of 41 PageID 8640
10

which a curve or figure is drawn, measured, rotated, etc.” Id. at 16 n.4 

(citing CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics 149442 (2003)).

Defendants assert that an object is “symmetrical” if “it has a mirror 

image at each point along its axis[.]” Id. (citing CRC Concise 

Encyclopedia of Mathematics 2918 (2003)). Based on those definitions, 

Defendants assert that “circumferentially” is “properly understood to be 

defining a direction(s) [sic] along a circumference of an object, where the 

circumference is defined by a radius about an axis.” Id. at 13; see also id

at 16 n.4.

Defendants contend that the claim term (“each longitudinal 

protrusion being circumferentially symmetric about its protrusion axis”) 

describes that the axis in question is the protrusion axis, and not the 

tire’s rotational axis. Id. at 13–14. Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s 

proposed construction effectively attempts to substitute “rotational axis” 

for “protrusion axis.” Id. Defendants liken their proposed construction 

to a corn dog, “which is generally circumferentially symmetric about its 

axis (the stick).” Id. at 14 (internal citations omitted). Defendants argue 

that longitudinal protrusion 34 is not depicted in the patent as being 

circumferentially symmetrical about its protrusion axis. Id. at 16.

Rather, Defendants argue that if the longitudinal protrusion 34 was 

circumferentially symmetrical about its protrusion axis, it would 

resemble a corn dog. Id. Defendants say the inventor’s testimony 

supports their construction. Id. at 14–16.

In its Reply, Bridgestone argues that the Court only needs to 

construe the term when there is an “actual dispute regarding the 

proper scope of the[] claims[.]” Reply at 5 (quoting O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 

1360 (emphasis in Bridgestone’s brief)). But Bridgestone argues the 

Defendants have not shown that there is an actual dispute. Id.

Furthermore, Bridgestone argues that Defendants’ proposed 

construction improperly relies on extrinsic evidence “to arrive at a 

definition that contradicts that intrinsic evidence.” Id. Bridgestone 

argues the patent does not describe a single example that corresponds 

to Defendants’ proposed construction. Id. Rather, Bridgestone argues 

that Figure 8 of the patent, for example, recites “BAR IS SYMETRICAL 

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 10 of 41 PageID 8641
11

[sic] ABOUT THIS CENTER LINE,” i.e., the sides of the longitudinal 

protrusion are mirror images of each other. Id.

As Bridgestone sees things, Defendants admit the inventors “agree 

that ... the tire tread is circumferentially symmetrical about the tire’s 

axis[,]” which is what Bridgestone’s alternative proposed construction 

describes. Id. at 7. Bridgestone asserts that Defendants’ statement that 

“longitudinal protrusion 34 is not circumferentially symmetric about its 

protrusion axis” indicates that the specification describes that the 

longitudinal protrusions may not be in the shape of a corn dog, thus 

contradicting Defendants’ proposed construction. Id. (emphasis in 

Bridgestone’s brief). With respect to Defendants’ argument that 

Bridgestone’s alternative construction attempts to rewrite the claim 

language, Bridgestone contends that its primary proposed construction

merely seeks to construe the term according to its plain-and-ordinary 

meaning. Id. at 7–8.

The Court agrees with Bridgestone that this term should be 

construed according to its plain-and-ordinary meaning for the reasons 

that follow.

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 11 of 41 PageID 8642
12

First, the “heavy presumption” is that terms should be construed 

according to their plain-and-ordinary meaning. Azure Networks, 771 

F.3d at 1347. Furthermore, although Defendants assert—with little 

explanation—that Bridgestone’s alternative proposed construction 

“radically” departs from the plain-and-ordinary meaning, Defendants 

have not provided a reason why a plain-and-ordinary construction is 

inappropriate.

Second, Defendant does not expressly allege lexicography or 

disclaimer, which are the only two exceptions to the general rule that a 

term should be construed as having its plain-and-ordinary meaning.

Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365.

Third, Defendants’ proposed construction improperly excludes all of 

the disclosed embodiments. Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., 514 F.3d 1271, 1276 

(Fed. Cir. 2008) (“We normally do not interpret claim terms in a way 

that excludes embodiments disclosed in the specification . . . where 

claims can reasonably be interpreted to include a specific embodiment, 

it is incorrect to construe the claims to exclude that embodiment, absent 

probative evidence to the contrary.”). More specifically, the figures in the 

patent depict that the longitudinal protrusions are not in the shape of a 

corn dog, nor otherwise symmetrical in three-dimensions around the 

protrusion axis. See, e.g., ’291 Patent at Figures 1, 2.

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 12 of 41 PageID 8643
13

As such, the requirement in Defendants’ proposed construction that the 

longitudinal protrusions must be in the shape of a corn dog improperly 

excludes all these embodiments.

Fourth, Defendants’ proposed construction improperly reads 

“circumferentially” out of the claim term. Generation II Orthotics Inc. v. 

Med. Tech. Inc., 263 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (a proposed claim 

construction must not “revise or ignore the explicit language of the 

claims.”); Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. 

Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of 

the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”). More specifically, 

Defendants’ proposed construction requires that the longitudinal 

protrusion be symmetric in three-dimensions, such that the longitudinal 

protrusion has the shape of a corn dog, i.e., is shaped like a cylinder 

around the protrusion axis. But the plain meaning of “symmetric about 

its protrusion axis”—i.e., without “circumferentially”—already requires

that the longitudinal protrusion be cylindrical around the protrusion 

axis. As such, Defendants’ proposed construction improperly reads 

“circumferentially” out of the claim term. Had the patentee intended for 

the longitudinal protrusion to be cylindrical around the protrusion axis, 

the patentee would have omitted the word “circumferentially” from the 

claim language. But because the patentee included “circumferentially” 

in the claim term, Defendants’ proposed construction cannot be correct.

Rather, adding “circumferentially” to “symmetric about its 

protrusion axis” narrows the amount or degree of symmetry such that 

the longitudinal protrusion is no longer cylindrical around the 

protrusion axis. More specifically, as described above, while “symmetric 

about its protrusion axis” means that the longitudinal protrusion is 

symmetric in three-dimensions, “circumferentially symmetric about its 

protrusion axis” narrows the symmetry such that the longitudinal 

protrusion must be symmetric only in the direction of the circumference, 

i.e., effectively only in two-dimensions (in the instantaneous plane of the 

circumference) versus three-dimensions. The figures of the patent depict 

such symmetry. For example, Figures 1 and 2 show that longitudinal 

protrusion 34 is symmetric only about the protrusion axis (which runs 

lengthwise across the longitudinal protrusion) in the direction of the 

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 13 of 41 PageID 8644
14

circumference. In that direction, each half of longitudinal protrusion 34 

on either side of the protrusion axis is a mirror image of the other half.

See ’291 Patent at Figures 1, 2. And there is clearly no symmetry in other 

directions.2

Fifth, the patent uses “circumferential[ly]” to refer to the tire’s 

circumference. For example, Figure 5 depicts that “circumferential 

spacing 37” is the spacing between protrusions along the circumference.

’291 Patent at Figure 5. As a second example, Figures 1–3, 5, and 6 

depict that “that circumferential protrusion 36” is a protrusion along the 

circumference of the tire. The patent does not appear to use 

“circumferential[ly]” to refer to longitudinal protrusions, nor do 

Defendants identify any such disclosure.

* * *

For the reasons above, the Court concludes that the proper 

construction of this term is the plain-and-ordinary meaning.

C. Term #2: “So that no portion of one longitudinal 

protrusion extends circumferentially past any portion of 

an adjacent longitudinal protrusion.”

Claim Term Bridgestone’s 

Proposal

Defendants’ 

Proposal

#2: “So that no 

portion of one 

longitudinal

protrusion extends 

circumferentially

past any portion of 

an adjacent

longitudinal 

protrusion”

Not indefinite;

Plain and ordinary 

meaning;

In the alternative, 

“extends 

circumferentially 

past” means “extends 

past in the 

circumferential 

direction of the tire.”

Indefinite;

As best understood:

“Extends 

circumferentially 

past” means that the 

protrusion is parallel 

to the tire axis, not at 

an angle with respect 

to the tire axis.

2Notably, Figure 8 also depicts this symmetry. As described above, Figure 8 depicts 

a longitudinal protrusion that is trapezoidal from the edge of the tire towards its center 

but star-shaped near the center. In other words, this longitudinal protrusion is not 

symmetrical in three dimensions, as required by Defendants’ proposed construction.

Despite that fact, Figure 8 still describes that the longitudinal protrusion is 

“SYMETRICAL [sic] ABOUT THIS CENTER LINE.” See ’291 Patent at Figure 8.

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 14 of 41 PageID 8645
15

Claim Term Bridgestone’s 

Proposal

Defendants’ 

Proposal

U.S. Patent No. 

9,873,291, Claim 1

The Parties dispute which direction “circumferentially past” refers 

to: (1) along the circumference (Bridgestone’s position) or (2) 

perpendicular to the circumference (Defendants’ position). Bridgestone 

argues that “extends circumferentially past” uses plain English words 

and requires no clarification. ECF No. 140 at 14. As described above, 

Bridgestone contends that the patent describes “circumferential[ly]” 

with respect to the circumference of the tire. Id. (citing ”291 Patent at 

Figure 1). Based on that, Bridgestone says Defendants’ proposed 

construction improperly limits the scope of the claim term. Id. at 15.

Moreover, Bridgestone argues Defendants’ proposed construction is 

redundant with surrounding claim language. Id. (citing U.S. Surgical 

Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Specifically, 

Bridgestone notes the claim language already recites “each longitudinal 

protrusion [has] a protrusion axis substantially parallel to a rotational 

axis of the tire,” which is redundant with “the protrusion is parallel to 

the tire axis” in Defendants’ proposed construction. Id. Bridgestone also 

contends that the intrinsic evidence does not support Defendants’ 

proposed construction. Id. In particular, Bridgestone contends that 

“[t]here is not a single citation that discusses or even suggests that 

‘extends circumferentially past’ means ‘parallel to the tire axis.’” Id.

Defendants’ Response argues that Figure 4 depicts that “lug tips 52 

and 32 do extend past one another in the ‘circumferential direction’ of 

the tire (contrary to ‘no portion’ in the claim).” ECF No. 144 at 17 

(emphasis in Defendants’ brief).

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 15 of 41 PageID 8646
16

Defendants otherwise argue the claim term is indefinite because the 

patentee didn’t use “circumferentially coincident” as it did for other 

patents in the same family. Id. at 18. Bridgestone replies that 

Defendants provide no arguments why the plain-and-ordinary meaning 

is incorrect or why the Court should adopt their proposed construction. 

ECF No. 146 at 8. Rather, Bridgestone argues that Defendants only 

argue that Bridgestone’s alternative proposed construction is incorrect.

Id.

Bridgestone contends that Defendants’ argument that “lug tips 52 

and 32 do extend past one another in the ‘circumferential direction’ of 

the tire” is incorrect. Id. More specifically, Bridgestone contends that 

Figure 4 depicts that there is “circumferential spacing” between 

adjacent longitudinal protrusions, which are arranged in the 

circumferential direction. Id. Bridgestone further contends that Figure 

5 expressly depicts that there is “circumferential spacing” between 

adjacent longitudinal protrusions (circumferential spacing 37). Id. at 9 

(citing ’291 Patent at 4:65–5:6, Figure 5). With respect to Defendants’

indefiniteness argument, Bridgestone asserts that Defendants’ reason

is merely “rank attorney argument.” Id. Bridgestone says the term is not 

indefinite because a POSITA, viewing the claim term in light of the 

specification, e.g., Figure 5, would understand the term’s scope with 

reasonable certainty. Id. at 9–10.

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 16 of 41 PageID 8647
17

Here too, the Court agrees with Bridgestone that this term is not 

indefinite and should be construed according to its plain-and-ordinary 

meaning.

First, the “heavy presumption” is that terms should be construed 

according to their plain-and-ordinary meaning. Azure Networks, 771 

F.3d at 1347. Defendants offer nothing to overcome the Court’s heavy 

presumption. 

Second, Defendants do not expressly allege lexicography or 

disclaimer, which are the only two exceptions to the general rule that a 

term should be construed as having its plain-and-ordinary meaning.

Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365.

Third, as described above with respect to Term #1, the patent uses 

“circumferential[ly]” to refer to the tire’s circumference. This supports 

Bridgestone’s position that the direction “circumferentially past” is 

along the circumference, and not parallel to the tire axis, i.e., 

perpendicular to the circumference.

Fourth, Defendants’ proposed construction excludes all of the 

disclosed embodiments. Oatey, 514 F.3d at 1276 (“We normally do not 

interpret claim terms in a way that excludes embodiments disclosed in 

the specification . . . where claims can reasonably be interpreted to 

include a specific embodiment, it is incorrect to construe the claims to 

exclude that embodiment, absent probative evidence to the contrary.”).

More specifically, using Figure 5 as an example, Defendants’ proposed 

construction for this claim term excludes a longitudinal protrusion from

overlapping another longitudinal protrusion in the horizontal direction

(from left to right) across the tire. But all figures in the patent depict 

that the longitudinal protrusions overlap in the horizontal direction.

See, e.g., ’291 Patent at Figures 1–5, 8–9, 15–16. As such, the Court 

concludes that Defendants’ proposed construction is incorrect because 

there is no probative evidence that justifies excluding all of the disclosed 

embodiments. Oatey, 514 F.3d at 1276.

Fifth, Defendants’ proposed construction is redundant with claim 

language. At best, “merely rephrasing or paraphrasing the plain 

language of a claim by substituting synonyms does not represent 

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 17 of 41 PageID 8648
18

genuine claim construction.” C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 

F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal quotations omitted). At worst, 

this redundancy may confuse a jury. Sulzer Textil A.G. v. Picanol N.V., 

358 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The district court simply must 

give the jury guidance that can be understood and given effect by the 

jury once it resolves the issues of fact which are in dispute.”).

Sixth, Defendants’ proposed construction improperly narrows the 

claim language by requiring that the “protrusion is parallel to the tire 

axis,” where the claim language only requires that the protrusion is 

“substantially parallel to a rotational axis of the tire.” ’291 Patent, Claim 

1, Limitation [b]. As such, Defendants’ proposed construction improperly 

narrows the claim language to require that the protrusion is parallel 

and not just “substantially” parallel. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (“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.”) (internal citation omitted). 

Seventh, the Court finds a POSITA would understand with 

reasonable certainty the term’s scope. Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 910. For 

example, Figure 4 shows the longitudinal protrusions overlap in the 

horizontal direction (parallel to the tire’s rotation axis) but are 

separated by circumferential spacing in the vertical direction. ’291 

Patent at Figure 4. The simplicity of these disclosures indicates a 

POSITA would understand the term’s scope with reasonable certainty.

* * *

For the reasons above, the Court concludes that the claim term is not

indefinite and that the proper construction of this term is plain-andordinary meaning.

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 18 of 41 PageID 8649
19

D. Term #3: “Defining first and second circumferentially 

symmetrical bulges.”

Claim Term Bridgestone’s 

Proposal

Defendants’ 

Proposal

#3: “Defining first 

and second

circumferentially 

symmetrical 

bulges”

U.S. Patent No. 

9,873,291, Claim 1

Not indefinite;

Plain and ordinary 

meaning; 

In the alternative, 

“circumferentially 

symmetrical bulges” 

means “bulges that 

are symmetric in the 

circumferential 

direction of the tire.”

Indefinite;

As best understood:

“Circumferentially 

symmetrical bulges” 

requires the bulges to 

be symmetrical about 

the protrusion axis.

Once again, Bridgestone contends Defendants show no reason to 

depart from plain-and-ordinary meaning vis-à-vis the above term. 

Bridgestone asserts that, as with Term #1, the Parties do not dispute 

the meaning of “symmetric[al],” but whether “circumferentially” refers 

to the circumference of the tire or the circumference of the longitudinal 

protrusion. Id. Bridgestone asserts that because the patent always 

refers to “circumferential[ly]” with respect to the former, the claim term 

should be understood to encompass the former. Id. By contrast, 

Bridgestone asserts that Defendants’ proposed construction would 

exclude all disclosed embodiments. Id. Defendants’ Response argues

simply that “[t]he same construction arguments [for Term #2] also apply 

here.” ECF No. 144 at 19. In its Reply, Bridgestone correctly notes that 

Defendants “offer no independent analysis of this claim term,” and 

refers the Court to its arguments with respect to Term #1 and in its

Opening brief. ECF No. 146 at 10.

* * *

The Court finds the proper construction of this term is plain-andordinary meaning for the same reasons provided for Terms #1 and #2. 

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 19 of 41 PageID 8650
20

E. Term #4: “On circumferentially opposite sides of the 

protrusion axis.”

Claim Term Bridgestone’s 

Proposal

Defendants’ 

Proposal

#4: “On 

circumferentially 

opposite sides of

the protrusion 

axis”

U.S. Patent No. 

9,873,291, Claim 1

Not indefinite;

Plain and ordinary 

meaning; 

In the alternative, 

“circumferentially 

opposite sides of the 

protrusion axis” 

means “on opposite 

sides of the 

protrusion axis of the 

longitudinal 

protrusion, in the 

circumferential 

direction.”

Indefinite;

As best understood:

“Circumferentially 

opposite sides of the 

protrusion axis” 

require the bulges to 

be mirror images 

about the protrusion 

axis.

Bridgestone argues the term uses “clear, unequivocal language to 

specify where the bulges are located relative to one another—on opposite 

sides of the protrusion axis.” ECF No. 140 at 18. As such, Bridgestone 

says Defendants do not provide any reason why the Court should depart 

from the plain-and-ordinary meaning. Id.

Bridgestone contends that the patent recites that “[f]irst and second 

bulges 46 and 48 ... can extend from the protrusion axis 44” and that 

Figure 5 depicts that the “first and second bulges 46, 48 being on 

opposite sides of protrusion axis 44 in the circumferential direction of 

the tire.” Id. at 19 (quoting ’291 Patent at 5:45–47; citing ’291 Patent at 

Figure 5). Based on those disclosures, Bridgestone contends that the 

term “‘circumferentially opposite sides of the protrusion axis’ clearly and 

unequivocally specifies the location of the bulges relative to the 

protrusion axis in a manner consistent with the specification.” Id.

Bridgestone further asserts that the plain language of the claim term 

“does not suggest that the bulges are ‘mirror images,’ as Defendants 

propose[.]” Id. Bridgestone further asserts that Defendants proposed 

construction “lacks support in any of the cited evidence.” Id.

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 20 of 41 PageID 8651
21

In their Response, Defendants argue that because the two sides 

“substantially disagree” as to the meaning of this claim term, the Court 

needs to construe it. ECF No. 144 at 19 (citing O2 Micro, 521 F.3d 1360–

61). Defendants further argue that “given the complete disparity 

between [Bridgestone’s] proffered construction and [Defendants’], it is 

appropriate to consider extrinsic evidence which is consistent with the 

terminology and validates [Defendants’] rendering[.]” Id. at 19 n.7 

(emphasis in Defendants’ brief). To this end, Defendants assert that:

To be “circumferentially” opposite, each opposite side 

would be “equidistant” from the axis (as the points on a 

“circumference” are from the circle's center point). 

Therefore, the “plain meaning” of this claim term is “mirror 

images,” similar to a 4-door revolving door having a door at 

every 90 degrees about its axis).”

Id.

In its Reply, Bridgestone argues that none of the extrinsic evidence 

that Defendants cite “uses or even suggests the ‘mirror images’ language 

urged by Defendants.’” ECF No. 146 at 10. Bridgestone further argues 

that the extrinsic evidence Defendants cite too, e.g., 4-door revolving 

door, is unrelated to this claim term. Id. The Court agrees. 

First, the “heavy presumption” is that terms should be construed 

according to their plain-and-ordinary meaning; Defendants do nothing 

to overcome that heavy presumption. Azure Networks, 771 F.3d at 1347.

Second, Defendants don’t expressly allege lexicography or 

disclaimer, which are the only two exceptions to the general rule that a 

term should be construed as having its plain-and-ordinary meaning.

Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365.

Third, Defendants do not appear to dispute the meaning of “opposite 

sides of the protrusion axis,” but rather only appear to construe the 

meaning of “circumferentially.” But for the same reasons that the Court 

explained about in connection to Terms #1 and #2, the Court does not 

believe that a construction is necessary.

Fourth, the Court agrees Bridgestone that Defendants’ extrinsic 

evidence is unrelated to this claim term, but rather describes other 

concepts. Furthermore, none of the cited extrinsic evidence describes 

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 21 of 41 PageID 8652
22

this term in the same manner as Defendants’ proposed construction. In 

any case, the Court puts relatively little weight on extrinsic evidence 

given that it is “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining 

‘the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 

1317 (quoting C.R. Bard, 388 F.3d at 862).

* * *

For the reasons above, the Court concludes that the proper 

construction of this term is plain-and-ordinary meaning.

F. Term #5: “Wherein the circumferentially symmetrical 

bulges each include a convex circular arc shaped bulge 

portion.”

Claim Term Bridgestone’s 

Proposal

Defendants’ 

Proposal

#5: “Wherein the 

circumferentially

symmetrical 

bulges each include 

a convex circular

arc shaped bulge

portion”

U.S. Patent No. 

9,873,291, Claim 1

Not indefinite;

Plain and ordinary 

meaning; 

In the alternative, 

“circumferentially 

symmetrical bulges” 

means “bulges that 

are symmetric in the 

circumferential 

direction of the tire.”

Indefinite;

As best understood:

“Circumferentially 

symmetrical bulges” 

requires the bulges to 

be symmetrical about 

the protrusion axis.

“Convex circular” 

requires a circular 

radius. 

“Arc shaped” means a 

portion of a circle’s 

perimeter.

Bridgestone once again argues Defendants show no reason the Court 

should depart from plain-and-ordinary meaning. With respect to 

“circumferentially symmetrical bulges,” Bridgestone contends that this 

“means that the bulges are symmetrical in the circumferential direction 

of the tire for the reasons discussed [with respect to Term #3].” Id. at 21.

With respect to “convex circular” and “arc shaped,” Bridgestone 

contends that construing these terms would be an “exercise in 

redundancy” given that the claim already describes that the bulges are 

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 22 of 41 PageID 8653
23

circular. Id. (citing U.S. Surgical, 103 F.3d at 1356). Defendants’ 

Response simply incorporates the arguments from Term #2. ECF No. 

144 at 20. With respect to “convex,” Defendants argue that the Federal 

Circuit construed this term as “having a surface of boundary that curves 

or bulges outwards, as the exterior of a sphere.” Id. (Nystrom v. Trex 

Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1146–47 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Am. Heritage 

Dictionary of the English Language 402 (4th ed. 2000) (emphasis in 

Defendants’ brief))).

Defendants contend that Bridgestone’s proposed construction is 

contrary to the plain meaning of the term, and thus the Court should 

construe this term. Id. (citing cases). Defendants further argue that 

“given the complete disparity between [Bridgestone’s] proffered 

construction and [Defendants’], it is appropriate to consider extrinsic

evidence which is consistent with the terminology and validates

[Defendants’] rendering[.]” Id. at 21 n.9 (emphasis in Defendants’ brief).

In its Reply, Bridgestone argues that it is unclear what Defendants 

mean by their statement that Bridgestone’s proposed construction is 

contrary to the plain meaning of the term as its primary proposed 

construction is plain-and-ordinary meaning. ECF No. 146 at 11.

With respect to “circumferentially symmetric,” Bridgestone contends 

that Defendants’ arguments are improper for the reasons described in 

its Opening brief and for Term #1. Id. With respect to “arc shaped,” 

Bridgestone contends that “Defendants offer no analysis to support its 

definition of ‘arc shaped.’” Id. With respect to “convex circular,” 

Bridgestone contends that the cases Defendants cite are irrelevant 

because they construe “convex” and not “convex circular.” Id.

Bridgestone further contends that those cases also fail to support 

Defendants’ proposed construction. Id. The Court agrees. 

First, to beat again the dead horse, the “heavy presumption” is that 

terms should be construed according to their plain-and-ordinary 

meaning. Azure Networks, 771 F.3d at 1347. Try as they might, 

Defendants simply provide no sufficient basis to overcome this 

presumption. 

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 23 of 41 PageID 8654
24

Second, Defendants don’t expressly allege lexicography or 

disclaimer, which are the only two exceptions to the general rule that a 

term should be construed as having its plain-and-ordinary meaning.

Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365.

Third, with respect to “circumferentially symmetric,” the Court 

explained why plain-and-ordinary meaning is appropriate for this term 

in its analysis for Term #1.

Fourth, with respect to “convex circular,” the Court concludes that 

the cases that Defendants cite are inapposite because, in those cases, 

the court construed the term “convex,” and not “convex circular.” See, 

e.g., Nystrom, 424 F.3d at 1146–47. Furthermore, Defendants’ proposed 

construction (“requires a circular radius”) does not appear to construe 

“convex,” but rather appears to construe “circular” only.

Fifth, “arc shaped” and “convex circular” are simple mathematical 

terms that a POSITA would readily understand. As such, the Court 

concludes that adopting Defendants’ proposed construction for these two 

terms would be an “obligatory exercise in redundancy.” U.S. Surgical 

Corp., 103 F.3d at 1568.

Sixth, similarly, because “arc shaped” and “convex circular” are 

simple mathematical terms, the Court concludes that a lay jury would 

readily understand the meaning of these terms and thus would not 

benefit from the Court providing a construction. Sulzer Textil, 358 F.3d 

at 1366 (“The district court simply must give the jury guidance that can 

be understood and given effect by the jury once it resolves the issues of 

fact which are in dispute.”).

* * *

For the reasons above, the Court concludes that the proper 

construction of this term is plain-and-ordinary meaning.

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 24 of 41 PageID 8655
25

G. Term #6: “Having a radius of curvature.”

Claim Term Bridgestone’s 

Proposal

Defendants’ 

Proposal

#6: “Having a radius 

of curvature”

U.S. Patent No. 

9,873,291, Claim 1

Not indefinite;

Plain and ordinary 

meaning.

Indefinite;

As best understood:

“Radius of curvature” 

must be circular or 

arc shaped.

Bridgestone asserts that Defendants’ proposed construction—which 

construes “convex circular” as requiring a circular radius—is redundant 

with other claim language, e.g., “a convex circular arc shaped end 

portion having a radius of curvature.” Id. at 23. Bridgestone further 

asserts that “Defendants’ proposal underscores that the bulge portion 

has a circular or arc shape.” Id. Defendants argue the Court should 

construe this disputed term. ECF No. 144 at 21 (citing cases).

Defendants maintain that “[c]learly having a single ‘radius’ defining a 

‘curvature’ shows a ‘circular or arc shape.’” Id. Bridgestone replies that 

Defendants’ proposed construction is “obviously redundant” with the 

claim language. ECF No. 146 at 12. Further, Bridgestone argues that 

Defendants’ proposed construction is wrong as a matter of law because 

it improperly limits “a radius of curvature” to a single radius when “a” 

in patent law means “one or more.” Id. (citing Baldwin Graphic Sys. Inc. 

v. Siebert, Inc., 513 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Bridgestone 

contends that Defendants do not provide a reason to depart from this 

general rule. Id. The Court agrees.

First, the “heavy presumption” is that terms should be construed 

according to their plain-and-ordinary meaning. Azure Networks, 771 

F.3d at 1347. The Court once again sees nothing from Defendants to 

overcome this presumption. 

Second, Defendant does not expressly allege lexicography or 

disclaimer, which are the only two exceptions to the general rule that a 

term should be construed as having its plain-and-ordinary meaning.

Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365.

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 25 of 41 PageID 8656
26

Third, Defendants’ proposed construction improperly limits “a radius 

of curvature”—which, in patent law is “one or more”—to just one radius.

Baldwin Graphic Sys., 513 F.3d at 1342. While the Court sympathizes 

with Defendants on the linguistic inconsistency of this usage, it 

nevertheless remains a standard idiosyncrasy of American patent law. 

Fourth, as was the case for “arc shaped” and “convex circular,” 

“radius of curvature,” is a simple mathematical term that a POSITA 

would readily understand. As such, the Court concludes that adopting 

Defendants’ proposed construction would be an “obligatory exercise in 

redundancy.” U.S. Surgical Corp., 103 F.3d at 1568.

Fifth, similarly, as was the case for “arc shaped” and “convex 

circular,” the Court concludes that a lay jury would readily understand 

the meaning of this term and thus would not benefit from the Court 

providing a construction. Sulzer, 358 F.3d at 1366.

* * *

For the reasons above, the Court concludes that the proper 

construction of this term is plain-and-ordinary meaning.

H. Term #7: “Located on a distal side of the convex circular 

arc shaped bulge portions.”

Claim Term Bridgestone’s 

Proposal

Defendants’ 

Proposal

#7: “Located on a 

distal side of the 

convex circular arc 

shaped bulge 

portions”

U.S. Patent No. 

9,873,291, Claim 1

Not indefinite;

Plain and ordinary 

meaning;

In the alternative, 

“distal side” means 

“side away from the 

respective sidewall.”

Indefinite;

As best understood:

“Convex circular” 

requires a circular 

radius. 

“Arc shaped” means a 

portion of a circle’s 

perimeter.

This term is very similar to Term #5 (“wherein the circumferentially 

symmetrical bulges each include a convex circular arc shaped bulge 

portion”) in that both terms contain the phrase “convex circular arc 

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 26 of 41 PageID 8657
27

shaped bulge portions.” This term, however, also adds the prefatory 

phrase “located on a distal side.”

Bridgestone argues that this term “merely identifies the location of 

the ‘end portion’ in plain English, and it should be given its plain and 

ordinary meaning.” ECF No. 140 at 24. Bridgestone argues that 

Defendants do not provide any reason why the Court should depart from 

the plain-and-ordinary meaning. Id.

Bridgestone contends that while Defendants repeat their 

constructions for “convex circular” and “arc shaped” from Term #5,

Defendants do not provide a construction for “distal side.” Id. at 24, 26.

Bridgestone asserts that the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence “makes 

clear that the distal side is the ‘side away from the respective sidewall.’”

Id. at 25. With respect to the intrinsic evidence, Bridgestone asserts that 

Claim 1 recites that “each longitudinal protrusion includes a contact 

surface having first and second edges extending in a distal direction 

from the respective sidewall.” Id. Bridgestone further asserts that 

Figure 5 depicts that longitudinal protrusions 34A and 34B extend away 

from sidewall 26. Id.

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 27 of 41 PageID 8658
28

Bridgestone asserts that, during prosecution, Bridgestone provided 

an annotated version of Figure 8, which shows that “distal direction” for 

the longitudinal protrusion is away from the sidewall that the 

protrusion is attached to. Id. at 25–26.

With respect to the extrinsic evidence, Bridgestone cites to two 

dictionary definitions that recite that the distal direction is away from 

the point of attachment. Id. at 26 (citing ECF No. 140, Ex. 8 at 

BRIDGESTONE_00001633, Ex. 9 at BRIDGESTONE_00001594).

In their Response, Defendants argue that Bridgestone made a 

prosecution disclaimer that “the concave portions are located 

immediately on a distal side of the convex circular arc shaped bulge 

portions.” ECF No. 144 at 24 (emphasis in Defendants’ brief). In 

particular, Defendants argue that Bridgestone told the Patent and 

Trademark Office that pending Claim 41 (which issued as Claim 1) was 

“the embodiment illustrated in Figure 8 and the claim merely clarified 

the location of the concave portions.” Id. Defendants then argue that the 

Examiner conceded that pending Claim 41 was allowable if Bridgestone 

clarified the direction. Id. Defendants argue that Examiner’s concession 

indicates that the Examiner understood that the concave portions were 

located between the free end and bulges. Id. As Defendants see it, 

Bridgestone’s “amendments and arguments made during prosecution 

are clear disclaimers that the concave portions are located immediately

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 28 of 41 PageID 8659
29

on a distal side of the convex circular arc shaped bulge portions.” Id.

(emphasis in Defendants’ brief).

Bridgestone argues that Defendants have abandoned their proposed 

construction and instead assert prosecution disclaimer. Id. at 13.

Bridgestone contends that it is too late for Defendants to propose a new 

construction, after (1) the Parties exchanged preliminary claim 

constructions on March 2, 2023 and (2) the Parties submitted a joint 

claim construction and prehearing statement on April 3, 2023. Id.

Bridgestone contends that Defendants’ untimely new proposed 

construction violates the Court’s claim construction procedures. Id. And 

even if the construction was timely, Bridgestone argues it fails to meet 

the “clear and unmistakable” standard required for a finding of a 

prosecution disclaimer. Id. (quoting Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 

334 F.3d 1314, 1325–26 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). More specifically, Bridgestone 

asserts that there was no need for a prosecution disclaimer to require 

that the concave portions are located immediately on a distal side 

because stating that the concave portions are located on a distal side 

was sufficient to distinguish prior art. Id. at 14.

Bridgestone argues that it did not assert that pending Claim 41 was 

the embodiment illustrated in Figure 8, but rather that it provided an 

annotated version of Figure 8 to “identify support in the original 

disclosure for the newly added claim—a common practice by patent 

attorneys that is encouraged by the Manual of Patent Examining 

Procedure (“MPEP”) [.]” Id. Bridgestone argues that “[n]othing in the 

prosecution history of the ’291 Patent suggests that claim 1 should be 

limited to the Figure 8 embodiment.” Id. at 15.

After reviewing the Parties’ arguments and considering the 

applicable law, the Court agrees with Bridgestone that this term should 

be construed according to its plain-and-ordinary meaning for the 

reasons that follow.

First, the “heavy presumption” is that terms should be construed 

according to their plain-and-ordinary meaning. Azure Networks, 771 

F.3d at 1347.

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 29 of 41 PageID 8660
30

Second, Defendant does not expressly allege lexicography, which is 

one of the only two exceptions to the general rule that a term should be 

construed as having its plain-and-ordinary meaning. Thorner, 669 F.3d 

at 1365.

Third, with respect to the prosecution history disclaimer, the Court 

concludes that Bridgestone did not make a disclaimer during 

prosecution. As a preliminary matter, “[t]he standards for finding 

lexicography and disavowal are exacting.” Hill-Rom Servs., 755 F.3d at

1371. Defendants have not met “exacting” standard for several reasons.

The most important reason is that Bridgestone did not state or claim 

that the “concave portions are located immediately on a distal side.”

Rather, Bridgestone specifically claimed that the “concave portions are 

located on a distal side.”

Additionally, adding “concave portions are located on a distal side” 

as a limitation to the claim was sufficient to distinguish the claimed 

invention from prior art. In other words, there was no need for 

Bridgestone to disclaim claim scope by requiring that the “concave 

portions are located immediately on a distal side.” In any event, there is 

insufficient evidence that Bridgestone limited the scope of pending 

Claim 41 (now Claim 1) to Figure 8. Rather, the Court agrees with 

Bridgestone that the reference to Figure 8 was intended to show 

Examiner that there was support for this particular claim term in the 

specification. See, e.g., MPEP § 2163(II)(A) (“With respect to newly 

added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original 

disclosure for the new or amended claims.”). Given that this is a 

reasonable alternative explanation for Bridgestone’s reference to Figure 

8, the Court concludes that there is no prosecution disclaimer. 3M, 725 

F.3d at 1326 (when “an applicant’s statements are amenable to multiple 

reasonable interpretations, they cannot be deemed clear and 

unmistakable.”).

Fourth, Defendants’ new proposed construction is untimely. In 

particular, Defendants did not propose this new disclaimer-based 

proposed construction in its preliminary claim constructions on March 

2, 2023 or prior to the Parties submitting a joint claim construction and 

prehearing statement on April 3, 2023. Defendants did not propose this 

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 30 of 41 PageID 8661
31

new proposed construction before the filing of Bridgestone’s Opening 

brief on August 16, 2023. Rather, Defendants waited until August 30, 

2023 to propose this new construction when they filed their Response—

half a year too late. 

Finally, because a lay jury may not be familiar with the meaning of 

“distal side,” the Court provides the meaning of that term in its 

construction; namely, “wherein the plain-and-ordinary meaning of 

‘distal side’ is the ‘side away from the respective sidewall,’” which is 

based on the intrinsic record and the dictionary definitions Bridgestone 

provided.

* * *

For the reasons above, the Court concludes that the proper 

construction of this term is plain-and-ordinary meaning wherein the 

plain-and-ordinary meaning of “distal side” is the “side away from the 

respective sidewall.”

I. Term #8: “Includes a concave portion of the respective 

edge.”

Claim Term Bridgestone’s 

Proposal

Defendants’ 

Proposal

#8: “Includes a 

concave portion of 

the respective 

edge”

U.S. Patent No. 

9,873,291, Claim 1

Not indefinite;

Plain and ordinary 

meaning.

Indefinite;

As best understood:

The end portion of 

each of the first and 

second edges includes 

a concave portions, a

concave surface of 

one radius can only 

be a singular concave

surface.

Bridgestone argues that this term is “written in plain English and 

can easily be understood by a juror.” ECF No. 140 at 27. Bridgestone 

argues that Defendants do not provide any reason why the Court should 

depart from the plain-and-ordinary meaning. Id.

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 31 of 41 PageID 8662
32

Bridgestone contends that Defendants’ proposed construction that 

requires “one radius” or a “singular concave surface” is unsupported by 

the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. Id. Bridgestone first contends that 

the word “concave” does not require one radius or a single concave 

surface. Id. Bridgestone next contends that nothing in the claims 

requires a single radius. Id. at 27–28. Bridgestone contends that 

Defendants “fails to identify anything in the specification” that requires 

one radius or a singular concave surface. Id. at 28.

With respect to the extrinsic evidence, Bridgestone asserts that 

neither the geometry reference and dictionaries that Defendants cite 

requires that a concave surface have one radius or be a singular concave 

surface. Id.

Bridgestone further argues that Defendants’ proposed construction 

is wrong as a matter of law. Id. More specifically, Bridgestone contends 

that Defendants’ proposed construction improperly limits “a concave 

portion” to one radius or be a singular concave surface when “a” in 

patent law means “one or more.” Id. (citing Baldwin Graphic Sys., 513 

F.3d at 1342). Bridgestone contends that Defendants do not provide a 

reason to depart from this general rule. Id.

In their Response, Defendants argue that courts in other cases have 

construed “concave” to mean “hollowed or rounded inward [like the 

inside of a bowl]” or “arched in.” ECF No. 144 at 25 (citing Eko Brands, 

LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enters., Inc., No. CV 19-00257, 2020 WL 

13283477, at *7 (Kronstadt, J.) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2020), Simmons, Inc. 

v. Koronis Parts, No. 00-1984, 2001 WL 1095008, at *5 (Montgomery, J.)

(D. Minn. Sept. 17, 2001)). Defendants argue that these cases supports 

its proposed construction. Id. at 25–26.

In its Reply, Bridgestone argues that Defendants “merely quote the 

construction of ‘concave’ from two other district courts for two unrelated 

patents without explanation.” ECF No. 146 at 15. Bridgestone further 

argues that “[n]either construction suggests that ‘a concave surface of 

one radius can only be a singular concave surface,’ as Defendants 

propose.” Id.

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 32 of 41 PageID 8663
33

After reviewing the Parties’ arguments and considering the 

applicable law, the Court agrees with Bridgestone that this term should 

be construed according to its plain-and-ordinary meaning for the 

reasons that follow.

First, the “heavy presumption” is that terms should be construed 

according to their plain-and-ordinary meaning. Azure Networks, 771 

F.3d at 1347.

Second, Defendant does not expressly allege lexicography or 

disclaimer, which are the only two exceptions to the general rule that a 

term should be construed as having its plain-and-ordinary meaning.

Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365.

Third, the Court agrees with Bridgestone that Defendants’ proposed 

construction improperly limits “a concave portion” —which, in patent 

law is “one or more”—to one radius or be a singular concave surface.

Baldwin Graphic Sys., 513 F.3d at 1342.

Fourth, Defendants’ citation to case law is not persuasive for 

multiple reasons. As an initial matter, neither case is binding authority; 

rather, both are merely persuasive authority.

Furthermore, both cases are extrinsic evidence, which is “less 

significant than the intrinsic record in determining ‘the legally operative 

meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quoting C.R. 

Bard, 388 F.3d at 862). Relatedly, the constructions in both cases are 

from unrelated patents.

Finally, the constructions from both cases do not support the 

requirement in Defendants’ proposed construction of one radius and a 

singular concave surface. Rather, the constructions leave open the 

possibility that there may be multiple radii and/or multiple concave 

surfaces. For example, one construction is that concave means “hollowed 

or rounded inward like the inside of a bowl.” But bowls are not required 

to be a half a sphere (i.e., one radius and/or have a singular concave

surface); rather, the sides of bowl may have different curvatures, e.g., 

more curved at the bottom and less curved at the top.

* * *

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 33 of 41 PageID 8664
34

For the reasons above, the Court concludes that the proper 

construction of this term is plain-and-ordinary meaning.

J. Term #9: “Wherein the concave portions of the end 

portions of the first and second edges are symmetric 

with each other about the protrusion axis.”

Claim Term Bridgestone’s 

Proposal

Defendants’ 

Proposal

#9: “Wherein the 

concave portions of 

the end portions of 

the first and 

second edges are 

symmetric with each 

other about the 

protrusion axis”

U.S. Patent No. 

9,873,291, Claim 2

Not indefinite;

Plain and ordinary 

meaning.

Indefinite;

As best understood:

“The end portion of 

each of the first and 

second edges” 

terminates in a 

single concave 

surface that is 

bisected by the 

protrusion axis.

Bridgestone argues that this term is “written in plain English and 

can easily be understood by a juror.” ECF No. 140 at 29. Bridgestone 

argues that Defendants do not provide any reason why the Court should 

depart from the plain-and-ordinary meaning. Id. at 29–30.

Bridgestone contends that Defendants improperly attempt to “inject 

a requirement of ‘a single concave surface’ into the claim.” Id. at 30.

Bridgestone contends the Court should reject that attempt for the same 

reasons described in connection with Term #8. Id. Bridgestone also 

contends that “Defendants’ proposed that ‘a single concave surface ... is 

bisected by the protrusion axis” is unsupported by any evidence.” Id.

In their Response, Defendants again argue that other courts have 

construed “concave” to mean “hollowed or rounded inward like the inside 

of a bowl.” ECF No. 144 at 25 (citing Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera 

Maynez Enters., Inc., No. CV 19-00257, 2020 WL 13283477, at *7 

(Kronstadt, J.) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2020), Simmons, Inc. v. Koronis Parts, 

No. 00-1984, 2001 WL 1095008, at *5 (Montgomery, J.) (D. Minn. Sept. 

17, 2001)).

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 34 of 41 PageID 8665
35

With respect to “symmetric . . . about the protrusion axis,” 

Defendants argue that “common parlance mandates a circular or cone 

shape around an axis.” Id.

In its Reply, Bridgestone argues that Defendants “repeat the 

construction of ‘concave’ from two unrelated district court cases.” ECF 

No. 146 at 15. With respect to “symmetric ... about the protrusion axis,” 

Bridgestone argues that Defendants do not provide any evidence for that 

assertion. Id.

After reviewing the Parties’ arguments and considering the 

applicable law, the Court agrees with Bridgestone that this term should 

be construed according to its plain-and-ordinary meaning for the 

reasons that follow.

First, the “heavy presumption” is that terms should be construed 

according to their plain-and-ordinary meaning. Azure Networks, 771 

F.3d at 1347.

Second, Defendant does not expressly allege lexicography or 

disclaimer, which are the only two exceptions to the general rule that a 

term should be construed as having its plain-and-ordinary meaning.

Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365.

Third, with respect to “concave,” the Court incorporates its fourth

reason in Term #8 regarding Defendants’ citation to two district court 

cases.

Fourth, with respect to “symmetric . . . about the protrusion axis,” 

the Court concludes that Defendants’ proposed construction improperly

narrows the plain-and-ordinary meaning of this term. More specifically, 

the claim term recites that “the concave portions of the end portions of 

the first and second edges are symmetric with each other about the 

protrusion axis.” In other words, the plain language of this claim term 

describes that specific portions of the first and second edges are mirror 

images of each other (“symmetric with each other”). The protrusion axis, 

in this claim term, simply recites the frame of reference that symmetry 

is evaluated against.

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 35 of 41 PageID 8666
36

The Court’s reasoning for this term (“symmetric with each other

about the protrusion axis”) is consistent with its reasoning for Term #1 

(“each longitudinal protrusion being circumferentially symmetric about 

its protrusion axis”). For the latter, a longitudinal protrusion that was 

symmetric about its protrusion axis would be a cylinder. But adding 

“circumferential” before “symmetrical” narrows the symmetry such that 

the longitudinal protrusion must be symmetric only in the direction of 

the circumference. Although the former recites “symmetric” but does not 

recite “circumferentially,” this symmetry doesn’t necessarily result in a

cylinder because the claim language for this term is for specific portions 

of the longitudinal protrusion. Contrarily, the claim language for Term 

#1 is for the entire longitudinal protrusion. Specific portions may be 

symmetrical with each other without those portions of the longitudinal 

protrusion—or the entire longitudinal protrusion—being a cylinder. By 

contrast, for a longitudinal protrusion to be symmetrical with itself, each 

pair of corresponding points on opposite sides of the protrusion axis 

must be symmetrical with each other, resulting in a cylinder. But 

because this claim term (“symmetric with each other about the 

protrusion axis”) is limited to a subset of points, the end-result is not 

necessarily a cylinder.

* * *

For the reasons above, the Court concludes that the proper 

construction of this term is plain-and-ordinary meaning.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons described herein, the Court adopts the following 

constructions for each term.

SO ORDERED on this 30th day of October 2023.

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 36 of 41 PageID 8667
Claim Term Bridgestone’s Proposal Defendants’ Proposal Court’s Construction

#1: “Each longitudinal 

protrusion being 

circumferentially 

symmetric about its 

protrusion axis”

U.S. Patent No. 

9,873,291, Claim 1

Not indefinite;

Plain and ordinary 

meaning;

In the alternative, 

“circumferentially 

symmetric” means 

“symmetric in the 

circumferential direction 

of the tire.”

Indefinite;

As best understood:

“Circumference” relates

to the perimeter of a

circle.

“Circumferentially 

symmetric” about its

protrusion axis requires a 

geometric figure (such as 

a cylinder or cone) having 

a central axis with each 

radial point about that 

axis having a 

corresponding mirror 

image point (for example 

... visualize a corny dog

[shown] with the stick

being its axis and the

remainder of the corny

dog [ hot dog and

breading ] being

circumferentially

symmetric about that

axis; on the other hand,

Not indefinite. Plain-andordinary meaning.

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 37 of 41 PageID 8668
38

Claim Term Bridgestone’s Proposal Defendants’ Proposal Court’s Construction

shish kabab [shown] is

not circumferentially

symmetric about its axis).

#2: “So that no portion 

of one longitudinal

protrusion extends 

circumferentially

past any portion of an 

adjacent longitudinal 

protrusion”

U.S. Patent No. 

9,873,291, Claim 1

Not indefinite;

Plain and ordinary 

meaning;

In the alternative, 

“extends 

circumferentially past” 

means “extends past in 

the circumferential 

direction of the tire.”

Indefinite;

As best understood:

“Extends 

circumferentially past” 

means that the 

protrusion is parallel to 

the tire axis, not at an 

angle with respect to the 

tire axis.

Not indefinite. Plain-andordinary meaning.

#3: “Defining first and 

second

circumferentially 

symmetrical bulges”

U.S. Patent No. 

9,873,291, Claim 1

Not indefinite;

Plain and ordinary 

meaning;

In the alternative, 

“circumferentially 

symmetrical bulges” 

means “bulges that are 

symmetric in the 

circumferential direction 

of the tire.”

Indefinite;

As best understood:

“Circumferentially 

symmetrical bulges” 

requires the bulges to be 

symmetrical about the 

protrusion axis.

Not indefinite. Plain-andordinary meaning.

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 38 of 41 PageID 8669
39

Claim Term Bridgestone’s Proposal Defendants’ Proposal Court’s Construction

#4: “On 

circumferentially 

opposite sides of the 

protrusion axis”

U.S. Patent No. 

9,873,291, Claim 1

Not indefinite;

Plain and ordinary 

meaning;

In the alternative, 

“circumferentially 

opposite sides of the 

protrusion axis” means 

“on opposite sides of the 

protrusion axis of the 

longitudinal protrusion, 

in the circumferential 

direction.”

Indefinite;

As best understood:

“Circumferentially 

opposite sides of the 

protrusion axis” require 

the bulges to be mirror 

images about the 

protrusion axis.

Not indefinite. Plain-andordinary meaning.

#5: “Wherein the 

circumferentially

symmetrical bulges

each include a convex 

circular arc shaped

bulge portion”

U.S. Patent No. 

9,873,291, Claim 1

Not indefinite;

Plain and ordinary 

meaning;

In the alternative, 

“circumferentially 

symmetrical bulges” 

means “bulges that are 

symmetric in the 

circumferential direction 

of the tire.”

Indefinite;

As best understood:

“Circumferentially 

symmetrical bulges” 

requires the bulges to be 

symmetrical about the 

protrusion axis.

“Convex circular” 

requires a circular radius. 

Not indefinite. Plain-andordinary meaning.

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 39 of 41 PageID 8670
40

Claim Term Bridgestone’s Proposal Defendants’ Proposal Court’s Construction

“Arc shaped” means a 

portion of a circle’s 

perimeter.

#6: “Having a radius 

of curvature”

U.S. Patent No. 

9,873,291, Claim 1

Not indefinite;

Plain and ordinary 

meaning.

Indefinite;

As best understood:

“Radius of curvature” 

must be circular or arc 

shaped.

Not indefinite. Plain-andordinary meaning.

#7: “Located on a 

distal side of the 

convex circular arc 

shaped bulge 

portions”

U.S. Patent No. 

9,873,291, Claim 1

Not indefinite;

Plain and ordinary 

meaning;

In the alternative, “distal 

side” means “side away 

from the respective 

sidewall.”

Indefinite;

As best understood:

“Convex circular” 

requires a circular radius. 

“Arc shaped” means a 

portion of a circle’s 

perimeter.

Not indefinite. Plain-andordinary meaning 

wherein the plain-andordinary meaning of 

“distal side” is the “side 

away from the respective 

sidewall.”

#8: “Includes a 

concave portion of 

the respective edge”

Not indefinite;

Plain and ordinary 

meaning.

Indefinite;

As best understood:

The end portion of each of 

the first and second edges 

includes a concave.

Not indefinite. Plain-andordinary meaning.

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 40 of 41 PageID 8671
41

Claim Term Bridgestone’s Proposal Defendants’ Proposal Court’s Construction

U.S. Patent No. 

9,873,291, Claim 1

portions, a concave 

surface of one radius can 

only be a singular 

concave surface.

#9: “Wherein the 

concave portions of the 

end portions of the 

first and second 

edges are symmetric 

with each other about

the protrusion axis”

U.S. Patent No. 

9,873,291, Claim 2

Not indefinite;

Plain and ordinary 

meaning.

Indefinite;

As best understood:

“The end portion of each 

of the first and second 

edges” terminates in a 

single concave surface 

that is bisected by the 

protrusion axis.

Not indefinite. Plain-andordinary meaning.

Case 4:22-cv-00145-P Document 168 Filed 10/30/23 Page 41 of 41 PageID 8672