NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

VOCALTAG LTD., SCR ENGINEERS LTD.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

AGIS AUTOMATISERING B.V.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-1804

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Wisconsin in No. 3:13-cv-00612-JDP, 

Judge James D. Peterson.

______________________ 

Decided: September 1, 2016

______________________ 

GREGORY A. CASTANIAS, Jones Day, Washington, DC, 

argued for plaintiffs-appellants. Also represented by 

ISRAEL SASHA MAYERGOYZ, Chicago, IL; ALVIN C. LIN, 

FRED H. PERKINS, Morrison Cohen LLP, New York, NY; 

BARRY G. MAGIDOFF, PAUL J. SUTTON, Sutton Magidoff 

LLP, New York, NY.

JONATHAN H. MARGOLIES, Michael Best & Friedrich, 

LLP, Milwaukee, WI, argued for defendant-appellee. Also 
2 VOCALTAG LTD. v. AGIS AUTOMATISERING B.V. 

represented by KATHERINE W. SCHILL; ANDREW 

DUFRESNE, Madison, WI.

______________________ 

Before PROST, Chief Judge, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit 

Judges.

STOLL, Circuit Judge. 

VocalTag Ltd. and SCR Engineers Ltd. (collectively, 

“VocalTag”) appeal the United States District Court for 

the Western District of Wisconsin’s grant of summary 

judgment finding that Agis Automatisering B.V.’s accused 

CowManager system does not infringe the asserted claims

of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,350,481 and 7,878,149 as well as the 

district court’s grant of summary judgment of no willful 

infringement. For the reasons below, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The ’481 and ’149 patents are directed to devices and 

methods for monitoring activity of cattle. VocalTag filed a 

patent infringement suit against Agis, accusing Agis’s 

CowManager system of infringement.1 The accused 

CowManager system includes an accelerometer and a 

microprocessor attached to an ear tag. The accelerometer 

measures instantaneous acceleration forces, and the 

microprocessor performs statistical calculations for each 

sample of acceleration data. Applying an algorithm, the 

CowManager system then classifies the data into behavior categories, with certain categories correlating to a cow 

that is ruminating or in estrus. After construing several 

disputed claim terms, the district court granted Agis’s 

motion for summary judgment of noninfringement and no 

willful infringement on all asserted claims. 

 

1 VocalTag asserted claims 1, 8, and 9 of the ’481 

patent and claims 1–6, 11–17, 23, and 24 of the ’149 

patent against Agis. 
VOCALTAG LTD. v. AGIS AUTOMATISERING B.V. 3

I.

The ’481 patent, or “rumination” patent, relates to a 

method and system for monitoring chewing actions of 

ruminant animals, such as cattle, with the use of sensors 

and data processors. ’481 patent col. 1 l. 62 – col. 2 

l. 3. Ruminant animals have multi-chamber stomachs

and digest food through a process involving chewing, 

swallowing, and regurgitation. Id. col. 1 ll. 19–28. Exemplary claim 1 recites:

1. A monitoring system for monitoring the suitability of animal feed, of ruminant animals, comprising: 

at least one sensor for sensing chewing actions

of the animal produced by the animal while chewing animal feed, including the time of each chewing action and the number of chewing actions per 

predetermined time interval, for indicating a ruminating activity; 

and a data processor accumulating both the 

time of each said sensed chewing actions and the 

number of said chewing actions per unit time interval, for determining the chewing rhythm of the 

animal indicating ruminating activities over a 

predetermined time period to provide an indication of desirable changes in the animal feed for 

maximizing milk production or for maintaining 

animal health.

Id. col. 8 l. 56 – col. 9 l. 3 (emphases added).

The district court determined that the claim limitation “sensor for sensing chewing actions” is a means-plusfunction limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6,2 with a 

 

2 The version of 35 U.S.C. § 112 that applies here is 

the version in force preceding the changes made by the 
4 VOCALTAG LTD. v. AGIS AUTOMATISERING B.V. 

function of “sensing chewing actions of the animal produced by the animal while chewing animal feed, including 

the time of each chewing action and the number of chewing actions per predetermined time interval.” J.A. 8. The 

corresponding structure, according to the district court, is 

a sound sensor, including a diaphragm-type microphone, 

a piezoelectric device, or any other sound-to-electrical 

transducer. J.A. 10. 

The district court similarly determined that the 

claimed “data processor” is a means-plus-function limitation, with a function of “accumulating both the time of 

each of said sensed chewing actions and the number of 

said chewing actions per unit time interval, for determining the chewing rhythm of the animal indicating ruminating activities over a predetermined time period to provide 

an indication of desirable changes in the animal feed for 

maximizing milk production or for maintaining animal 

health.” J.A. 10. And the district court found the corresponding structures are the algorithms in Figures 8 and 

11 of the ’481 patent. J.A. 11. 

In view of these constructions, the district court 

granted summary judgment of noninfringement because 

it found the undisputed operation of the accused CowManager system does not utilize sound sensors, measure 

the time of each chew, or count individual chews. J.A. 

15–17.

II.

The ’149 patent, or “estrus” patent, is directed to a 

method and device for detecting estrus in cattle by sensing motion of the animal and differentiating eating-

 

America Invents Act, given the effective filing dates of the 

claims of the ’481 and ’149 patents. See Leahy-Smith 

America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 

293 (2011).
VOCALTAG LTD. v. AGIS AUTOMATISERING B.V. 5

related motion from other motion. ’149 patent col. 2 

ll. 31–41. Representative claim 12 recites:

12. A device for detecting estrus in a cattle animal, comprising:

at least one acceleration sensor for sensing acceleration level of said cattle animal over a period 

of time, wherein the acceleration level is indicated 

by energy level of an acceleration signal produced 

by the acceleration sensor; 

at least one sensor for sensing over a period of 

time, data indicative of eating performed by said 

cattle animal; and

at least one microprocessor for accumulating

said acceleration signal, attenuating the energy 

level of the acceleration signal as the indication of 

eating is stronger, the energy attenuated acceleration signal identifying neutralized motion data, 

extracting typical activity level of said animal 

based on said neutralized motion data and identifying abnormal behavior indicative of said estrus 

in said animal by comparing recently identified 

neutralized motion data with the extracted typical 

activity level.

Id. col. 8 l. 66 – col. 9 l. 15 (emphasis added). 

The district court construed the attenuating step as 

“requir[ing] that the energy level of the signal from the 

acceleration sensor be reduced in proportion to the 

strength of the indication that the animal is eating.” 

J.A. 25. The district court then granted summary judgment of noninfringement because it found that “at no 

point is the energy level of the [CowManager] accelerometer signal attenuated” and any purported attenuation is 

not proportionate to the strength of the indication of 

eating. J.A. 26–28. 
6 VOCALTAG LTD. v. AGIS AUTOMATISERING B.V. 

VocalTag appeals, and we have jurisdiction pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 

DISCUSSION

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment under the law of the regional circuit, here the Seventh Circuit. Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 

726 F.3d 1306, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Seventh Circuit 

reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo. Id. 

Summary judgment is proper where “the movant shows 

that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact 

and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 

An infringement analysis requires a two-step process: 

construing the claims and then comparing the properly 

construed claims to the accused product. Abbott Labs. v. 

Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Construing means-plus-function claim terms also follows a 

two-step process. First, the claimed function must be 

identified, and then any structure disclosed in the specification corresponding to the claimed function must be 

determined. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 

1339, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Regarding questions of 

claim construction, including whether claim language 

invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6, the district court’s determinations based on evidence intrinsic to the patent as 

well as its ultimate interpretations of the patent claims 

are legal questions that we review de novo.” Id. (citing 

Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 

840–41 (2015)). “To the extent the district court, in 

construing the claims, makes underlying findings of fact 

based on extrinsic evidence, we review such findings of 

fact for clear error.” Id. 

I. Rumination Patent

On appeal, VocalTag disputes the district court’s determination of corresponding structure for the “sensor” 
VOCALTAG LTD. v. AGIS AUTOMATISERING B.V. 7

and “data processor” claim limitations and consequent 

finding of no infringement. VocalTag does not, however, 

dispute the district court’s determination that these claim 

limitations are in means-plus-function format. Nor does 

VocalTag dispute the district court’s interpretation of the 

claimed function. 

We first consider the proper construction of the “data 

processor” limitation. While the parties agree with the 

district court’s determination that the algorithms in 

Figures 8 and 11 of the ’481 patent are corresponding 

structure for the claimed “data processor,” VocalTag 

faults the district court for excluding the algorithm in 

Figure 6 as additional corresponding structure. This 

algorithm is depicted below: 
8 VOCALTAG LTD. v. AGIS AUTOMATISERING B.V. 

’481 patent, Fig. 6. Agis counters that the Figure 6 algorithm lacks a step for determining the time of each chew

as required by the claimed function, unlike the algorithms 

in Figures 8 and 11, which include specific steps for 

determining the time (or duration) of each chew. 

We agree with VocalTag that the district court erred 

by excluding the Figure 6 algorithm as corresponding 

structure. Although the determination of the time of each 

chew is not made explicit in Figure 6, the specification 

explains that the Figure 6 algorithm “determin[es] 

whether the detected chewing sounds . . . are ruminating 

activities or eating activities . . . by determining the 

rhythm (e.g., duration and frequency) of the chewing 

sounds at time-spaced intervals . . . .” ’481 patent col. 5 

ll. 14–20 (emphasis added). Thus, in view of the explanation in the specification, the Figure 6 algorithm provides 

corresponding structure for the claimed function of the 

“data processor” of determining the time and number of 

chewing actions for a predetermined time interval.

Nevertheless, we agree with the district court’s determination that the accused CowManager system does 

not infringe the asserted claims of the ’481 patent. VocalTag’s infringement evidence is directed to whether the 

accused system performs the claimed function—

determining the time and number of chewing actions. 

But to demonstrate infringement of a means-plus-function 

claim limitation, a patentee must also show that the 

accused device has the same or equivalent structure as 

the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification. 

Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 

1324, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Literal infringement of a 

means-plus-function claim limitation requires that the 

relevant structure in the accused device perform the 

identical function recited in the claim and be identical or 

equivalent to the corresponding structure in the specification.”). While VocalTag asserts that the CowManager 

system can detect the time and number of chewing ac-
VOCALTAG LTD. v. AGIS AUTOMATISERING B.V. 9

tions, VocalTag has not presented any evidence or argument suggesting that the CowManager system uses the 

same or equivalent algorithm as any of the algorithms in 

Figure 6, 8, or 11 of the ’481 patent. We therefore affirm 

the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement with respect to the asserted claims of the ’481 

patent. Because we resolve infringement of the rumination patent on the “data processor” limitation, we do not 

reach the district court’s construction of the corresponding 

structure for the claimed “sensor” limitation. 

II. Estrus Patent

VocalTag challenges the district court’s construction 

of the claim limitation “attenuating the energy level of the 

acceleration signal as an indication of eating is stronger” 

(the “attenuation” limitation), as well as the district 

court’s determination that the accused CowManager 

system does not meet this limitation. The district court 

construed this limitation as “requir[ing] that the energy 

level of the signal from the acceleration sensor be reduced 

in proportion to the strength of the indication that the 

animal is eating.” J.A. 25. VocalTag proposes this term 

be construed as “the microprocessor statistically reduces 

the value of the acceleration signal when the indication of 

the animal’s eating increases.” Appellant Br. 56 (emphasis omitted). 

Turning first to claim construction, VocalTag disputes 

the district court’s construction because it believes the

construction improperly imposes a requirement that 

attenuation occur during transmission of the signal rather 

than in the microprocessor. According to VocalTag, the 

construction imposes this requirement because it states

“energy level of the signal from the acceleration sensor.” 

Id. at 51. But VocalTag misinterprets the construction. 

The phrase “energy level of the signal from the acceleration sensor” identifies the acceleration sensor as the 

source of the signal. It does not, as VocalTag contends, 
10 VOCALTAG LTD. v. AGIS AUTOMATISERING B.V. 

require the attenuation to occur during transmission of 

the signal rather than in the microprocessor. Rather, the 

court’s construction comports with the full context of the 

claim language, which describes the acceleration signal 

element as being “produced by the acceleration sensor.” 

’149 patent col. 9 l. 4. Thus, we see no error with this 

aspect of the district court’s construction.

VocalTag also challenges the district court’s inclusion 

of a proportionality requirement in its construction of the 

attenuation limitation. We agree with VocalTag that the 

district court erred by requiring the claimed attenuation 

to be “in proportion to” the strength of the indication that 

the animal is eating. But as even VocalTag acknowledges 

with its proposed construction, the claimed attenuation 

must occur when the indication of the animal’s eating 

increases. See Appellant Br. 56 

Despite the district court’s improper imposition of a 

proportionality requirement, we affirm its grant of summary judgment of noninfringement. Evidence of attenuation alone is not sufficient to demonstrate infringement; 

instead, VocalTag was required to present evidence that 

attenuation occurs when the indication of the animal’s 

eating increases. VocalTag points to various statistical 

calculations performed by the CowManager system as 

evidence of attenuation. The record evidence, however, 

does not show that the purported attenuation performed 

by the accused system occurs in response to an increase in 

the indication of the animal’s eating. To the contrary, it is 

undisputed that the CowManager system performs the 

same statistical analysis on every data set it collects. As 

such, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary

judgment of noninfringement of the asserted claims of the 

’149 patent.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district 

court’s grant of summary judgment that Agis’s CowMan-
VOCALTAG LTD. v. AGIS AUTOMATISERING B.V. 11

ager system does not infringe the asserted claims of the 

’481 and ’149 patents, as well as its grant of summary 

judgment of no willful infringement. 

AFFIRMED