Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/290/1364/474459/
Timestamp: 2017-11-20 05:56:08
Document Index: 141707814

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 8', '§ 1295', '§ 102', '§ 282', '§ 112', '§ 102', '§ 112', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 285', '§ 1125', '§ 112']

Transclean Corporation, James P. Viken, Jon A. Lang, and Donald E. Johnson, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Bridgewood Services, Inc., Defendant/cross-appellant, 290 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Federal Circuit › 2002 › Transclean Corporation, James P. Viken, Jon A. Lang, and Donald E. Johnson, Plaintiffs-appellants, v...
Transclean Corporation, James P. Viken, Jon A. Lang, and Donald E. Johnson, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Bridgewood Services, Inc., Defendant/cross-appellant, 290 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - 290 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
Rehearing Denied: July 2, 2002
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Alan M. Anderson, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., of Minneapolis, MN, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief was Christopher K. Larus.
Transclean Corporation, James P. Viken, Jon A. Lang, and Donald E. Johnson (collectively "Transclean") appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (1) reversing entry of a portion of a jury's damages award for infringement of Transclean's U.S. Patent 5,318,080, Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Serv., Inc., No. 97-2298, slip op. at 28 (D. Minn. Jan. 8, 2001) ("Damages Opinion"); (2) denying its motion for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, id. at 66, as well as attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and Minn.Stat. § 8.31, Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Serv., Inc., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1061 (D. Minn. 2001) ("Attorney Fees Opinion"); and (3) granting summary judgment of noninfringement on its claim of trademark infringement, Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Serv., Inc., 77 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 1094-95 (D. Minn. 1999) ("Summary Judgment Opinion"). Bridgewood cross-appeals from the court's grant of summary judgment that the '080 patent is not invalid for anticipation and that Bridgewood infringed claims 1-4 and 12. Id. at 1063, 1081, 1083. Bridgewood also cross-appeals from the court's denial of its motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of claim 13. Id. at 1087. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm-in-part and vacate-in-part.
Transclean appeals and Bridgewood cross-appeals from the decisions of the district court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a) (1).
We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, reapplying the same standard used by the district court. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 149 F.3d 1309, 1315, 47 USPQ2d 1272, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). "The evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). When both parties move for summary judgment, the court must evaluate each motion on its own merits, resolving all reasonable inferences against the party whose motion is under consideration. McKay v. United States, 199 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
We review a district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL") de novo, reapplying the JMOL standard used by the district court. Sextant Avionique, S.A. v. Analog Devices, Inc., 172 F.3d 817, 824, 49 USPQ2d 1865, 1869 (Fed. Cir. 1999). JMOL is appropriate when "a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) (1). To prevail, an appellant "must show that the jury's findings, presumed or express, are not supported by substantial evidence or, if they were, that the legal conclusion(s) implied from the jury's verdict cannot in law be supported by those findings." Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 893, 221 USPQ 669, 673 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citation omitted).
A determination that a patent is invalid as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires a finding that "each and every limitation is found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference." Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522 (Fed. Cir. 1998). To anticipate, the reference must also enable one of skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention. In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 531, 533, 226 USPQ 619, 621 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Because a patent issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is presumed to be valid, 35 U.S.C. § 282 (1994), the evidentiary burden to show facts supporting a conclusion of invalidity is clear and convincing evidence, WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1396-97 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
A determination of infringement requires a two-step analysis. "First, the court determines the scope and meaning of the patent claims asserted ... [Second,] the properly construed claims are compared to the allegedly infringing device." Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454, 46 USPQ2d 1169, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc) (citations omitted). Step one, claim construction, is an issue of law, Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970-71, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370, 116 S. Ct. 1384, 134 L. Ed. 2d 577 (1996), that we review de novo, Cybor, 138 F.3d at 1456, 46 USPQ2d at 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Step two, comparison of the claim to the accused device, requires a determination that every claim limitation or its equivalent be found in the accused device. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 29, 117 S. Ct. 1040, 137 L. Ed. 2d 146 (1997). Those determinations are questions of fact. Bai v. L & L Wings, Inc., 160 F.3d 1350, 1353, 48 USPQ2d 1674, 1676 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
The choice of methodology for calculating damages is within the discretion of the district court. SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Labs. Corp., 926 F.2d 1161, 1164, 17 USPQ2d 1922, 1925 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In any event, the patent owner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the quantum of damages, an issue of fact for which we review the jury's decision for substantial evidence. Id. at 1164 n. 2, 17 USPQ2d at 1925 n. 2.
A decision to sanction a litigant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 is one that is not unique to patent law, DH Tech., Inc. v. Synergystex Int'l, Inc., 154 F.3d 1333, 1343, 47 USPQ2d 1865, 1873 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and we therefore apply regional circuit law to that issue, Midwest Indus., Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc., 175 F.3d 1356, 1359, 50 USPQ2d 1672, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (en banc in relevant part). Because the Eighth Circuit, the pertinent regional circuit in this case, reviews the imposition of sanctions under Rule 37 for an abuse of discretion, Givens v. A.H. Robins Co., 751 F.2d 261, 263 (8th Cir. 1984), we will do the same.
We agree with Transclean that the claim phrase "equalizing the fluid flow" refers to a rate, not just a volume. To construe that phrase, we look to the specification for guidance, Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996), and the specification clearly refers to the equalization of flow rates. For example, the patent describes problems that can occur in the prior art when the input flow rate of added fluid does not match the output flow rate of used fluid:
As the parties agree, the phrase "means for equalizing fluid flow" is a means-plus-function limitation governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, and the recited function is "equalizing fluid flow." To anticipate a claim reciting a means-plus-function limitation, the anticipatory reference must disclose the recited function identically. Cf. Wenger Mfg., Inc. v. Coating Mach. Sys., Inc., 239 F.3d 1225, 1238, 57 USPQ2d 1679, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("Literal infringement of a means-plus-function claim requires that the accused device have structure for performing the identical function recited in the claim."). In this case, neither the Becnel nor the Japanese patent contains such a disclosure.
The Japanese patent likewise discloses equalization of fluid amount, but not necessarily fluid flow rates. Broadly speaking, the Japanese patent describes an "ATF [automatic transmission fluid] exchanger device," Jap. Pat. 2-72299, abstract (English translation), which, like the invention described in the '080 patent, comprises a supply of fresh fluid, a receptacle for used fluid, and hoses for connection to a transmission's fluid circulation system. Id. However, the Japanese apparatus also includes scales for measuring the weights of the fresh fluid supplied and used fluid removed, as well as a "detection means so that the difference between the amount of fluid drained and the amount of fluid supplied is maintained within an indicated range; and which automatically balances the amount of fluid drained and fluid supplied within an indicated range." Thus, the Japanese patent explicitly discloses that fluid weight is equalized, not necessarily fluid flow rate. Although it is possible that the detection means could under some circumstances (e.g., if the response time for the feedback loop is sufficiently fast) effectively equalize the flow rates as well, it is also possible for that not to be the case. Because anticipation by inherent disclosure is appropriate only when the reference discloses prior art that must necessarily include the unstated limitation, Cont'l Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268-69, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (emphasis added), the Japanese patent cannot inherently anticipate the claims of the '080 patent. We conclude, as did the district court, that Bridgewood did not raise any genuine issue of material fact regarding anticipation of claim 1 by the Japanese patent, and we therefore affirm the court's conclusion that Transclean is entitled to summary judgment of non-anticipation as to the Japanese patent. Thus, we affirm the court's conclusion that the claims of the '080 patent are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by the Becnel or Japanese prior art patents.
As for the second alleged abuse of discretion, denial of Bridgewood's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of claim 13, Bridgewood argues that the court misconstrued the phrase "exhibiting resilient characteristics" to mean "returning to an original shape after being deformed" or "returning to its original position after being compressed." Summary Judgment Opinion at 1087. Bridgewood contends that initial deformation of shape is inherent in the meaning of the expression and cites technical dictionary definitions in support of that contention. Under the correct construction of that expression, according to Bridgewood, the free-floating piston in its device does not "exhibit [] resilient characteristics." Moreover, Bridgewood contends that prosecution history estoppel and the all-limitations rule bar Transclean from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents for that claim limitation because claim 13, in which it appears, was added during prosecution, whereas the originally submitted claims did not contain that limitation, and because vitiation of the "exhibiting resilient characteristics" limitation would result. Transclean responds that claim 13 requires only that "said means exhibit [] resilient characteristics," not that the means itself be "resilient." Transclean also cites common dictionary definitions and expert testimony in support of its view that the term "resilient" does not require initial deformation. Moreover, Transclean contends that claim 13 itself was never narrowed during prosecution and that Bridgewood's prosecution history estoppel argument was not raised in the district court and has therefore been waived.
Because we affirm the judgment of infringement of claims 1-4 and 12, we need not review the court's ultimate conclusion regarding infringement of claim 13. Bridgewood has already been held to be an infringer, and infringement of another claim does not increase its liability. See Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1220, 36 USPQ2d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 1995). However, to put to rest any doubts regarding the proper construction of claim 13, because the patent has not been shown to be invalid and the issue has been fully ventilated by the parties, we will address that issue. We agree with Bridgewood that the court misconstrued the term "resilient." Dictionaries, both general and technical, define the adjective "resilient" or its noun form "resilience" as encompassing that which returns to its original shape following a deformation in shape. See, e.g., McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms 1693 (5th ed.1994) (defining the term "resilience" as the " [a]bility of a strained body, by virtue of high yield strength and low elastic modulus, to recover its size and form following deformation"); American Heritage Dictionary 1535 (3rd ed.1992) (defining the term "resilient" as "returning to an original shape or position, as after having been compressed"). The dissent, as did the district court, focuses on the word "or" in the preceding definition to support its view that the term "resilient" encompasses the returning to a position alone, without any shape deformation. We do not think that the use of the word "or" in that definition can overcome the meaning attributed to the term "resilient" by the patent's disclosure of only a flexible diaphragm dividing a tank into two chambers. See '080 patent; fig. 3; col. 4, ll. 54-55 (depicting and describing "a flexible rubber-like diaphragm"). Furthermore, to the extent there is a difference between the common and technical meanings of the terms, the term "resilient" is used in the '080 patent in a technical context to describe a component of a mechanical apparatus, and a technical dictionary is therefore a better source to inform the meaning of the term to a skilled artisan in this case. Moreover, we do not share the dissent's view that the phrase "exhibiting resilient characteristics" describes a function in a means-plus-function limitation. On the contrary, the means-plus-function limitation further defined in claim 13 is the "means for equalizing the flow" previously set forth in claim 1. Id. at col. 8, ll. 20-23, ll. 55-61. According to the claim language, the only function performed by that "means" is "equalizing the flow." The phrase "exhibiting resilient characteristics" is not a second function performed by that "means"; rather, the phrase further defines characteristics of that "means." It is therefore, appropriate, indeed mandatory under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, to look to the corresponding structure in the specification to ascertain the meaning of the phrase. As already noted, that corresponding structure, "a flexible rubber-like diaphragm," '080 patent, col. 4, ll. 54-55, is "resilient" in the sense that it tends to return to its original shape, not just its original position. We therefore conclude that the phrase "exhibiting resilient characteristics" in the '080 patent requires initial shape deformation. Because the jury's finding of infringement of claim 13 was premised on a construction of that phrase at odds with ours, we vacate the judgment of infringement of claim 13.
Transclean appeals from the court's decision concerning the third award only. Transclean cites Minco, Inc. v. Combustion Eng'g, Inc., 95 F.3d 1109, 40 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1996) in support of its argument that, because Bridgewood's sole source of revenue was an infringing product and Bridgewood generated $6,500,000 in goodwill from the sale of its business to Century, Transclean is entitled to recover the value of that goodwill. Transclean asserts that to allow Bridgewood to retain that windfall would create an incentive for others to infringe a patent and then sell their businesses.
The jury found that Bridgewood's infringement was willful. Transclean argued to the jury that it made Bridgewood aware of the '080 patent, but that Bridgewood did not obtain an opinion of counsel and did not abate its manufacture or sale of the infringing machines. Bridgewood argued that the fact that it obtained its own patent on an automatic transmission fluid changing machine demonstrated a good faith belief that it was not an infringer. Bridgewood argued that when it received advice from its patent attorney concerning the patentability of its invention over the '080 patent, it received an implicit opinion of noninfringement. Although the jury agreed with Transclean that Bridgewood had willfully infringed the '080 patent, the court, after applying the factors set forth in Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d, 816, 826-27, 23 USPQ2d 1426, 1435-36 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (listing nine factors), declined to enhance the patent infringement damages. Damages Opinion at 13-22.
We agree with Bridgewood that the court acted within its discretion in not enhancing the damages award. Enhancement of damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 involves the fact-finder determining that the infringer engaged in culpable conduct and the court exercising its discretion to determine whether and to what extent to enhance the damages. Jurgens v. CBK, Ltd., 80 F.3d 1566, 1570, 38 USPQ2d 1397, 1399 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The jury's finding of willfulness satisfies the first step, see id., and is also one of the factors the court assesses in performing the second step, see Read, 970 F.2d at 827, 23 USPQ2d at 1435. However, there are other factors relevant to the second step. See id. (listing as factors: (1) deliberate copying; (2) infringer's investigation and good-faith belief of invalidity or non-infringement; (3) litigation conduct; (4) infringer's size and financial condition; (5) closeness of the case; (6) duration of the misconduct; (7) remedial action by the infringer; (8) infringer's motivation for harm; and (9) concealment). A finding of willful infringement "authorizes but does not mandate an award or increased damages." Modine Mfg. Co. v. Allen Group, Inc., 917 F.2d 538, 543, 16 USPQ2d 1622, 1625 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, the court considered the pertinent Read factors carefully, Damages Opinion at 13-22, and although we may or may not have reached a different conclusion if we had been in the district court's shoes, we wear our own shoes. We review the court's analysis for an abuse of discretion, and we are satisfied that such an abuse did not occur.
We also agree with Transclean that the court did not erroneously assume that its only options were to treble the patent infringement damages or not enhance the damages at all. The court's opinion states, "In exercising our discretion to enhance damages, however, we are limited `to a trebling of the basic damage award.'" Damages Opinion at 10 (quoting Signtech USA, Ltd. v. Vutek, Inc., 174 F.3d 1352, 1358-59, 50 USPQ2d 1372, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We read that statement, as it was intended in Signtech, to simply recognize the upper range of the possible enhancement. See Signtech, 174 F.3d at 1358-59, 50 USPQ2d at 1376 (" [T]he district court enjoys discretion to choose whether to award enhanced damages to the claimant and in what amount. This discretion, however is limited to a trebling of the basic damage award.") (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Elsewhere in the same opinion, the court makes statements recognizing that a range of enhancement is possible. See Damages Opinion at 8 ("` [T]he court determines, exercising its sound discretion, whether, and to what extent, to increase the damages award ...'") (quoting Jurgens, 80 F.3d at 1570, 38 USPQ2d at 1399) (emphasis added); Damages Opinion at 21 ("`The paramount determination in deciding to grant enhancement and the amount thereof is ...'") (quoting Read, 970 F.2d, at 826, 23 USPQ2d at 1435) (emphasis added). See also Modine, 917 F.2d at 543 n. 3, 16 USPQ2d at 1625 n. 3 (" [T]he fact that the court's opinion focuses upon treble damages does not necessarily mean that the judge failed to consider lesser multiples of damages.").
With regard to attorney fees for patent infringement, we agree with Bridgewood. Transclean is correct in stating the general rule that the district court must normally explain why it decides that a case is not exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 when a factual finding of willful infringement has been established and, if exceptional, why it decides not to award attorney fees, S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 781 F.2d 198, 201, 228 USPQ 367, 369 (Fed. Cir. 1986). However, we have recognized an exception to that general rule in cases where the record adequately sets forth grounds for affirming the district court's actions. Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mech. Sys. Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1584, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing Consol. Al. Corp. v. Foseco Int'l, Ltd., 910 F.2d 804, 814, 15 USPQ2d 1481, 1488-89 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). In this case, the court's careful analysis of the Read factors regarding enhancement of damages suffices as grounds for affirming the court's implicit conclusion that the infringement case was not exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Transclean brought a cause of action for trademark infringement, asserting that Bridgewood infringed Transclean's TOTAL FLUID EXCHANGE and TOTAL FLUID X-CHANGE unregistered trademarks under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (1), and Minnesota law. The court granted Bridgewood's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement on the ground that there was no genuine issue of material fact relating to Transclean's adequate usage of the marks in commerce. Summary Judgment Opinion at 1094-95. Transclean argues that a genuine issue of material fact regarding that issue was raised by an affidavit from James P. Viken, Transclean's CEO and inventor on the '080 patent, stating that Transclean had used the marks on its products and documents since 1994. Id. at 1093-94. Bridgewood responds that the affidavit is conclusory and does not designate specific facts concerning the marks' usage.
We agree with Bridgewood that Transclean failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to nondescriptive usage of the mark on the goods. We apply Eighth Circuit law to this issue, and the Eighth Circuit has recognized the universal requirement for actual usage of the mark in commerce, First Bank v. First Bank Sys., Inc., 84 F.3d 1040, 1044 (8th Cir. 1996). Use of the mark on documents does not satisfy the usage requirement when the mark can be affixed to the goods themselves, Elec. Communications, Inc. v. Elec. Components for Industry Co., 443 F.2d 487, 492 (8th Cir. 1971), as is the case here, Summary Judgment Opinion at 1094. Furthermore, the usage of the marks must be as a source identifier rather than as a description of the goods' qualities. First Bank, 84 F.3d at 1044. In this case, the Viken affidavit is deficient in two ways, even if assumed to be accurate. First, the reference to documents is irrelevant, Elec. Communications, 443 F.2d at 492-93. Second, on its face, the affidavit does not purport to show that the use was as a source identifier. Indeed, the record evidence shows that the marks were used in a purely descriptive manner, e.g., "TFX TOTAL FLUID EXCHANGE SYSTEM FOR AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSIONS by Transclean Corp." Accordingly, the court did not err when it concluded that the Viken affidavit failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding usage of the Transclean's marks, and we affirm the court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Bridgewood on the trademark claims.
To help us divine the meaning of "resilient," Transclean has provided dictionary definitions of "resilient" as well as expert testimony regarding what one of skill in the art would understand the term to mean. In contrast, Bridgewood proffers definitions of "resilience" from technical dictionaries. The district court properly rejected Bridgwood's definitions of "resilience" and adopted instead the ordinary meaning of the actual claim term, resili ent. The majority, based on the supposed superiority of technical dictionaries over ordinary dictionaries, prefers Bridgewood's definition.
The district court gave the word "resilient" its ordinary dictionary meaning, possessing "the capability of `returning to an original shape or position, as after having been compressed.'" Transclean Corp. v. Bridgewood Services, Inc., 77 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 1087 (D. Minn. 1999) (quoting American Heritage Dictionary 1535 (3d ed.1992) (emphasis added)). In other words, the broad term "resilient characteristics" can include a variety of different properties such as the ability to return to an original position after being exposed to a force, or the ability to return to an original shape after having been deformed. This meaning is in accord with the definition found in other common dictionaries. See, e.g., Websters Third New International Dictionary (unabridged) 1932 (defining resilient as "returning freely to a previous position, shape or condition: as a: moving swiftly back ... b: capable of withstanding shock without permanent deformation or rupture... c: SPRINGY ...." (first emphasis added)); Oxford English Dictionary 714 (2d Ed.1989) (defining resilient as "1. Returning to the original position; springing back, recoiling, etc." and "2. Resuming the original shape or position after being bent, compressed, or stretched"); Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary 1638 (2d ed.1993) (defining resilient as "1. springing back; rebounding" and "2. returning to the original form or position after being bent, compressed, or stretched") (emphasis added). This meaning is in accord with the expert testimony proffered by Transclean, which explained that the patent uses the term resilient to mean "returning to the, some earlier position... or shape."
To support its proposed definition, Bridgewood cites various technical dictionaries that, supposedly, define "`resilient' or `resilience.'" A closer examination of these sources reveals, however, that the technical definitions provided by Bridgewood in fact relate the definition of "resilience" and not "resilient." And, unlike "resilient," "resilience" generally refers to the stored energy of a strained—and typically elastic-material. For example, Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia 2673 (8th ed.1995) defines resilience as follows: "resilience of a body measures the extent to which energy may be stored in it by elastic deformation." The Dictionary of Mechanical Engineering 314 (4th ed.1996) defines resilience as " [t]he stored energy of a strained or elastic material, such as in a compressed spring or in rubber dampers, which have inherent damping properties." See also Chambers Dictionary of Science and Technology 980 (1999) (defining resilience as the " [s]tored energy of a strained material, or the work done per unit volume of an elastic material by a bending moment, force, torque or shear force, in producing strain").
The majority chooses to rely upon Bridgewood's proffered definitions of "resilience" rather than the ordinary meaning of the actual claim term, "resilient," for two reasons. First, the majority finds that technical dictionaries are generally superior to common dictionaries. While dicta in Bell Atlantic Network Services, Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267, 59 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2001), states the view that technical dictionaries are preferred to common dictionaries, neither that case nor the case upon which it relied, Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 45 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1998), involved a conflict between a common dictionary definition and that found in a scientific treatise—and neither does this case. The technical definitions are simply inapt because they define the wrong word-resilience instead of resilient. Indeed, the "common dictionaries" rejected by the majority are the only sources before the court that define both resilient and resilience, and notably, they define resilience in the same way as the supposedly superior technical dictionaries. For example, Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1932 (1993) defines resilience as follows:
The majority shores up its view of the correct meaning for "resilient" by holding that the phrase "exhibiting resilient characteristics for exerting a force" does not describe part of the function of the "means for equalizing the flow" limitation. I disagree with that holding, for it is clear to me that the "exhibiting resilient characteristics" phrase does define function. If I am correct on this point, then of course it is impermissible to define the function by reference to structure disclosed in the written description. Function must be defined by reference to ordinary principles of claim interpretation, before proceeding to determine corresponding structure. See Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1361, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The majority does not disagree with me on this point: if the phrase in question defines function, then resort to the specification to find structure to define the function is simply wrong, and ordinary tools of claim interpretation apply.
The majority's rationale is self-destructive. If the diaphragm is indeed the structure that corresponds to the "means for equalizing the flow" limitation—as both parties and all the judges on the case agree—then the majority must come to grips with the stark fact that the jury found that the piston structure in Bridgewood's device is structurally equivalent, for § 112 ¶ 6 infringement purposes, to the diaphragm disclosed in Figure 3. Indeed, the case was submitted to the jury precisely to resolve disputed issues of fact on the structural equivalence of the accused piston and the diaphragm structure. No question has been raised that substantial evidence does not support the jury's verdict. Consequently, if, as the majority holds, "exhibiting resilient characteristics for exerting a force" must be understood as merely "further defin [ing] the structure of [the] means," ante at 1375, there is no possible basis for disturbing the jury's verdict of infringement.