Source: https://casetext.com/case/texas-digital-systems-inc-v-telegenix
Timestamp: 2019-06-25 18:05:50
Document Index: 767104280

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 112', '§ 287', 'art, 35', '§ 287', '§ 287']

Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, 308 F.3d 1193 | Casetext
ReadReadAttorney AnalysesAnalyses3lockCiting BriefsBriefs27lockCiting CasesCiting Cases696
Texas Digital Systems, Inc.v.Telegenix
United States Court of Appeals, Federal CircuitOct 16, 2002
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Paul D. Stickney, United States Magistrate Judge.
Richard L. Schwartz, Winstead Sechrest Minick P.C., of Dallas, Texas, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief was Inge A. Larish.
Gregory J. Lavorgna, Drinker, Biddle Reath LLP, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Joseph R. DelMaster, Jr., Robert E. Cannuscio, and Stephen B. Schott.
The '890 patent is directed to a variable color LED display and display circuit as illustrated in Figure 3, reproduced below:
Claim construction is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1456, 46 USPQ2d 1169, 1174 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ( en banc). The standard of review for jury instructions is prejudicial legal error. See Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Indus. Prods., 756 F.2d 1556, 1558, 225 USPQ 253, 255 (Fed. Cir. 1985), overruled on other grounds by A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020, 22 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ( en banc). To prevail, the party challenging the jury instruction "must demonstrate both that the jury instructions actually given were fatally flawed and that the requested instruction was proper and could have corrected the flaw." Biodex Corp. v. Loredan Biomedical, Inc., 946 F.2d 850, 862, 20 USPQ2d 1252, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1991). "An erroneous instruction regarding claim interpretation that affects the jury's decision on infringement is grounds for a new trial." Ecolab Inc. v. Paraclipse, Inc., 285 F.3d 1362, 1373, 62 USPQ2d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
"In construing claims, the analytical focus must begin and remain centered on the language of the claims themselves, for it is that language that the patentee chose to use to `particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the patentee regards as his invention.' 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2." Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331, 59 USPQ2d 1401, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The terms used in the claims bear a "heavy presumption" that they mean what they say and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those words by persons skilled in the relevant art. See CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366, 62 USPQ2d 1658, 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2002); K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1362-63, 52 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1610 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 986, 6 USPQ2d 1601, 1604 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Moreover, unless compelled otherwise, a court will give a claim term the full range of its ordinary meaning as understood by persons skilled in the relevant art. See Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342, 60 USPQ2d 1851, 1854 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Johnson Worldwide Assocs., 175 F.3d at 989, 50 USPQ2d at 1610; Specialty Composites, 845 F.2d at 986, 6 USPQ2d at 1604.
It has been long recognized in our precedent and in the precedent of our predecessor court, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, that dictionaries, encyclopedias and treatises are particularly useful resources to assist the court in determining the ordinary and customary meanings of claim terms. See Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325, 63 USPQ2d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("The ordinary meaning of a claim term may be determined by reviewing a variety of sources, including . . . dictionaries and treatises. . . ." (internal citations omitted)); CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366, 62 USPQ2d at 1662 ("[O]ur precedents show that dictionary definitions may establish a claim term's ordinary meaning."); Optical Disc Corp. v. Del Mar Avionics, 208 F.3d 1324, 1334-35, 54 USPQ2d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("For such ordinary meaning, we turn to the dictionary definition of the term."); Quantum Corp. v. Rodime, PLC, 65 F.3d 1577, 1581, 36 USPQ2d 1162, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("[W]e see no error in the district court's use of dictionary definitions to ascertain the ordinary meaning of the relevant claim limitation."); In re Ripper, 36 C.C.P.A. 743, 171 F.2d 297, 299, 80 USPQ 96, 98 (1948) ("[I]t is clear that in ascertaining the meaning of [the claim term] as it appears herein, reference properly may be made to the ordinary dictionaries.").
Dictionaries are always available to the court to aid in the task of determining meanings that would have been attributed by those of skill in the relevant art to any disputed terms used by the inventor in the claims. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 n. 6, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1578 n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("[T]echnical treatises and dictionaries . . . are worthy of special note. Judges are free to consult such resources at any time . . . and may also rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms. . . ."); Cybor Corp., 138 F.3d at 1459, 46 USPQ2d at 1177 (citing Vitronics for the proposition that a court is free to consult dictionaries, encyclopedias, and treatises at any time to help determine the meaning of claim terms); Vanguard Prods. Corp. v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 234 F.3d 1370, 1372, 57 USPQ2d 1087, 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("A dictionary is not prohibited extrinsic evidence, and is an available resource of claim construction.").
These materials serve as important resources to assist courts in many ways. For example, they are often used to aid in the interpretation of statutes and regulations and in the interpretation of terms used in contracts. See, e.g., Rocknel Fastener, Inc. v. United States, 267 F.3d 1354, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (advising that the interpretation of tariff terms, a matter of statutory construction, may be aided by reviewing "dictionaries, scientific authorities, and other reliable information sources" (citations omitted)); Am. Express Co. v. United States, 262 F.3d 1376, 1381 n. 5 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (in interpreting Internal Revenue Service regulations and procedures, "[i]t is appropriate to consult dictionaries to discern the ordinary meaning of a term not explicitly defined by statute or regulation"); Bowers v. Baystate Techs., 302 F.3d 1334, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (construing contract terms using non-technical and technical dictionaries); Buchanan v. Dep't of Energy, 247 F.3d 1333, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (relying on a dictionary definition in construing a settlement agreement). These materials deserve no less fealty in the context of claim construction.
Because words often have multiple dictionary definitions, some having no relation to the claimed invention, the intrinsic record must always be consulted to identify which of the different possible dictionary meanings of the claim terms in issue is most consistent with the use of the words by the inventor. See Dow Chem. Co. v. Sumitomo Chem. Co., 257 F.3d 1364, 1372-73, 59 USPQ2d 1609, 1614 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1478, 45 USPQ2d 1429, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1998). If more than one dictionary definition is consistent with the use of the words in the intrinsic record, the claim terms may be construed to encompass all such consistent meanings. Rexnord, 274 F.3d at 1343, 60 USPQ2d at 1858 (holding that the claim term "portion" may be interpreted in accordance with the dictionary definitions to encompass both "separate" and "integral" parts of an object). The objective and contemporaneous record provided by the intrinsic evidence is the most reliable guide to help the court determine which of the possible meanings of the terms in question was intended by the inventor to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. See Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250, 48 USPQ2d 1117, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("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.").
Moreover, the intrinsic record also must be examined in every case to determine whether the presumption of ordinary and customary meaning is rebutted. See id. Indeed, the intrinsic record may show that the specification uses the words in a manner clearly inconsistent with the ordinary meaning reflected, for example, in a dictionary definition. In such a case, the inconsistent dictionary definition must be rejected. See id. ("[A] common meaning, such as one expressed in a relevant dictionary, that flies in the face of the patent disclosure is undeserving of fealty."); Liebscher v. Boothroyd, 46 C.C.P.A. 701, 258 F.2d 948, 951, 119 USPQ 133, 135 (1958) ("Indiscriminate reliance on definitions found in dictionaries can often produce absurd results."). In short, the presumption in favor of a dictionary definition will be overcome where the patentee, acting as his or her own lexicographer, has clearly set forth an explicit definition of the term different from its ordinary meaning. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88, 21 USPQ2d 1383, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Further, the presumption also will be rebutted if the inventor has disavowed or disclaimed scope of coverage, by using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope. See Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1324, 63 USPQ2d at 1380.
Consulting the written description and prosecution history as a threshold step in the claim construction process, before any effort is made to discern the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to the words themselves, invites a violation of our precedent counseling against importing limitations into the claims. See, e.g., Generation II Orthotics Inc. v. Medical Technology Inc., 263 F.3d 1356, 1367, 59 USPQ2d 1919, 1928 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("The district court should have construed the claim limitation `controlled' according to its ordinary and accustomed meaning [citing medical dictionary], rather than importing a characteristic of a disclosed or preferred embodiment into that term."); Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd., 781 F.2d 861, 867, 228 USPQ 90, 93 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ("Generally, particular limitations or embodiments appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims."), overruled on other grounds by Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc., 141 F.3d 1059, 46 USPQ2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1998). For example, if an invention is disclosed in the written description in only one exemplary form or in only one embodiment, the risk of starting with the intrinsic record is that the single form or embodiment so disclosed will be read to require that the claim terms be limited to that single form or embodiment. See Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1328, 63 USPQ2d at 1383 ("To the extent that the district court construed the term `clip' to be limited to the embodiment described in the specification, rather than relying on the language of the claims, we conclude that the district court construed the claim term `clip (28)' too narrowly."); Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186, 48 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (cautioning against the limitation of the claimed invention to preferred or specific embodiments or examples); Transmatic, Inc. v. Gulton Indus., Inc., 53 F.3d 1270, 1277, 35 USPQ2d 1035, 1040-41 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("[A] patent claim is not necessarily limited to a preferred embodiment disclosed in the patent."); SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 n. 14, 227 USPQ 577, 585 n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ( en banc) ("That a specification describes only one embodiment does not require that each claim be limited to that one embodiment."). Indeed, one can easily be misled to believe that this is precisely what our precedent requires when it informs that disputed claim terms should be construed in light of the intrinsic record. See, e.g., Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1329-30 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (stating the claims must be construed in light of the specification and the patent's prosecution history, if in evidence). But if the meaning of the words themselves would not have been understood to persons of skill in the art to be limited only to the examples or embodiments described in the specification, reading the words in such a confined way would mandate the wrong result and would violate our proscription of not reading limitations from the specification into the claims. See, e.g., Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1328, 63 USPQ2d at 1383; Generation II Orthotics, 263 F.3d at 1367, 59 USPQ2d at 1928; Comark, 156 F.3d at 1186, 48 USPQ2d at 1005; Transmatic, 53 F.3d at 1277, 35 USPQ2d at 1040-41; SRI Int'l, 775 F.2d at 1121 n. 14, 227 USPQ at 585 n. 14.
Each of the asserted claims of TDS's '481 and '561 patents includes the limitation, "repeatedly substantially simultaneously activating." The district court construed this limitation as follows:
Although certain claims of the patents in suit include a slight modification of this phrase, the parties have treated the modified phrases in an identical manner for purposes of this appeal.
The district court correctly construed the term "repeatedly." However, the district court's construction of the overall phrase "repeatedly substantially simultaneously activating" was in error and ignored the meaning of the term "activating." We begin by ascertaining the ordinary meaning to one skilled in the art. See Specialty Composites, 845 F.2d at 986, 6 USPQ2d at 1604. According to a relevant technical dictionary, to activate is "[t]o start an operation, usually by application of an appropriate enabling signal." Modern Dictionary of Electronics 20 (6th ed. 1984). We presume that the word used in a claim carries this ordinary meaning, but this presumption may be rebutted. See CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366, 62 USPQ2d at 1662. Here, the intrinsic evidence is entirely consistent with the dictionary definition, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that "activating" means other than what its dictionary definition would suggest, i.e., starting the operation or turning on. We conclude that the presumption has not been rebutted, and thus the ordinary meaning controls.
The "color control means" limitation appears in claims 2, 4, and 7 of the '481 patent, and claims 2 and 4 of the '561 patent. The limitation appearing in claim 2 of the '481 patent is representative:
"Because this limitation is expressed in `means plus function' language and because it does not recite definite structure in support of its function, it is subject to the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (1994)." B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1899 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The first step in construing such a limitation is to identify the function of the means-plus-function limitation. Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258, 52 USPQ2d 1258, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The next step is to identify the corresponding structure in the written description necessary to perform that function. Id. "Structure disclosed in the specification is `corresponding' structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim." Braun, 124 F.3d at 1424, 43 USPQ2d at 1900.
Telegenix argues that the district court erred by misidentifying both the claimed function and the corresponding structure from the specification. We agree. The function recited in the asserted claims does not include "selectively controlling the on times of the light sources." Instead, the claim recites "selectively controlling the durations of the pulses applied to the light sources. . . ." To the extent that the district court failed to follow the claim language in defining the function, it erred. See Micro Chem., 194 F.3d at 1258, 52 USPQ2d at 1263 ("The statute does not permit limitation of a means-plus-function claim by adopting a function different from that explicitly recited in the claim.").
Section 112, ¶ 6, as is well-documented, was intended to permit use of means expressions without recitation of all the possible means that might be used in a claimed apparatus. . . . The price that must be paid for use of that convenience is limitation of the claim to the means specified in the written description and equivalents thereof.
O.I. Corp. v. Tekmar Co., 115 F.3d 1576, 1583, 42 USPQ2d 1777, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). The duty to link or associate structure in the specification to the recited function is the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing § 112, paragraph 6. Braun, 124 F.3d at 1424, 43 USPQ2d at 1899. In the specification, the structure linked to the recited function of "selectively controlling the durations of the pulses applied to the light sources" includes the memory and counter circuitry illustrated in Figure 9. See '481 patent, col. 4, ll. 24-59. It was error for the district court to omit this structure from its claim construction of the color control means.
The patents in suit recite "display areas" and "background area" at several locations in the asserted claims. For example, claim 1 of the '619 patent recites "a plurality of variable color display areas . . .; [and] a variable color background area. . . ." The district court instructed the jury:
Beginning with the words of the claims themselves, the dictionary meaning of display is "[a] visually observable presentation of information. . . ." Illustrated Dictionary of Electronics 147 (3rd ed. 1985). Background is defined as: "[the] context or supporting area of a picture. . . ." Id. at 43. Thus, the ordinary meaning of "display area," as reflected in these dictionary definitions, is an area designated to portray information. Background is ordinarily understood to provide the context or contrasting reference against which the displayed information is presented. The ordinary meaning of these limitations does not indicate that the display and background areas are interchangeable.
Telegenix does not dispute that the patents in suit describe the seven-segment pattern in exemplary language. Instead, Telegenix argues that U.S. Patent No. 4,086,514 ("'514 patent") establishes that the same inventor represented matrix displays and seven-segment displays as two separate embodiments of the same invention. We fail to understand the relevance of Telegenix's argument. Whether or not the claims in an unrelated patent are broad enough to encompass both a matrix and the familiar seven-segment pattern, this proposition sheds no light on whether the claims of the patents in suit are limited to the seven-segment pattern. See Abbott Labs. v. Dey, L.P., 287 F.3d 1097, 1104, 62 USPQ2d 1545, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding the relationship between two unrelated patents, although having common subject matter, a common inventor, and the same assignee, "insufficient to render particular arguments made during prosecution of [one of the patents] equally applicable to the claims of [the other patent]").
Referring to the prosecution history, the Examiner's Statement of Reasons for Allowance for the '619 patent stated, "In this manner, multicolored arrays (i.e., color cathode ray tube displays such as Takeda, of record) in which there is no physical distinction between a foreground or background pixel (display area), are distinguished from by the claimed subject matter." Although the prosecution history may help define the scope of a term if relevant, see Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1576, 34 USPQ2d 1673, 1676 (Fed. Cir. 1995), this Examiner's statement has no bearing on the meaning of the term "pattern." Nor does this statement limit the scope of "pattern" to the familiar seven-segment font.
Although TDS argues that Figure 2 identifies structure broader than the inverting and non-inverting buses described in the written description, Figure 2 fails to describe any structure for the first and second means sufficient to comport with section 112, paragraph six. If a patentee fails to disclose an adequate corresponding structure in the specification, the patentee may fail to satisfy the bargain embodied in the statutory quid pro quo of section 112, paragraph six. See Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1360, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Notwithstanding its adequacy, Figure 2 provides no support whatsoever for the district court's identification of the corresponding structure as including "any firmware, software and/or hardware."
Control means includes any firmware, software, and/or hardware that functions to selectively couple the light sources in the display areas to said first means for carrying thereby causing the selective ones of the display areas to illuminate in a selected color. . . . Control means is defined as a multiplexer. Multiplexers serve to selectively couple each display area of a display device to non-inverting and inverting buses in order to illuminate the display areas with either the desired color or a substantially complimentary color in accordance with the output of the decoder. The decoder output is respectively coupled to the display areas. The multiplexer simultaneously couples the display areas to the display control bus and couples the converted display signal to the background areas of the display device.
However, for the same reasons announced earlier with regard to the "converter means," the district court erred by including "any firmware, software, and/or hardware" in its identification of the corresponding structure. See Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1585, 39 USPQ2d at 1579 ("Because the specification clearly and unambiguously defined the disputed term in the claim, reliance on this extrinsic evidence was unnecessary and, hence, legally incorrect."). We can find no support in the specification or prosecution history for such a broad array of structures. Instead, the specification describes a hardware multiplexer at col. 5, ll. 45-68 and col. 6, ll. 1-20, illustrated in Figures 3 and 4. We conclude that the correct construction of "control means" is that of the district court with the phrase "includes any firmware, software, and/or hardware that" excised from the first sentence and the phrase "a multiplexer" at the end of the second sentence replaced with the phrase — the multiplexer shown in Figure 4 and described in the accompanying written description, and equivalents thereof — .
On this record, we conclude that the claim construction errors committed by the district court were prejudicial. Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the district court and remand for a new trial of both liability and damages. To assist the district court on remand, we address the allegations of error regarding the admissibility of the challenged testimony of Brent W. Brown ("Brown") and J. Carl Cooper ("Cooper"), and the district court's reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Wine Railway Appliance Co. v. Enterprise Railway Equipment Co., 297 U.S. 387, 56 S.Ct. 528, 80 L.Ed. 736 (1936).
We review a trial court's decision to exclude evidence for abuse of discretion. Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 172, 109 S.Ct. 439, 102 L.Ed.2d 445 (1988). To be admissible, expert testimony must "assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." Fed.R.Evid. 702; Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 147, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999).
It's too dangerous to submit this evidence to the jury based upon the testimony of Mr. Brown and their offer of proof because Mr. Brown is just uncertain of the facts and circumstances surrounding when the invention actually got out into the public. . . . The Court finds that the uncorroborated testimony of Mr. Brown would be confusing to the jury. . . .
Telegenix argues that the district court erred by excluding Mr. Brown's testimony as lacking in sufficient corroboration. Telegenix contends that because his evidence was not offered as a party seeking to prove priority, no corroboration is required. Telegenix's argument misreads our caselaw on corroboration. "[C]orroboration is required of any witness whose testimony alone is asserted to invalidate a patent, regardless of his or her level of interest." Finnigan Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 180 F.3d 1354, 1369, 51 USPQ2d 1001, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the district court correctly required corroboration for Brown's testimony.
Telegenix argues that, even if Brown's testimony required corroboration, his 1982 patent application and other documentary and physical evidence provided sufficient corroboration for his testimony. Telegenix argues that the court erred by excluding the 1982 unissued patent application as corroborating evidence, citing Sandt Technology v. Resco, 264 F.3d 1344, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1091, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
148 F.3d 1368, 1371, 47 USPQ2d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1998). "Documentary or physical evidence that is made contemporaneously with the inventive process provides the most reliable proof that the inventor's testimony has been corroborated." Sandt, 264 F.3d at 1350-51, 60 USPQ2d at 1094.
However, the district court did refuse to consider Brown's '114 patent and physical evidence for corroboration purposes because it was not prior or contemporaneous evidence, as Telegenix concedes. TDS argues that the physical evidence offered with Brown's testimony was properly excluded because it was built after the effective date of the patents in suit. Whether or not the district court erred in refusing to consider this evidence for corroboration purposes, Telegenix faces a particularly high hurdle in attempting to demonstrate abuse of discretion in light of the stringent standard for corroboration. See Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc., 292 F.3d 728, 741-43, 63 USPQ2d 1251, 1260-61 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In the absence of further contemporaneous corroborating evidence, we are unable to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to admit Brown's testimony for lack of corroboration.
The district court excluded Brown's testimony for the further reason that Brown gave uncertain testimony concerning the date of public use: "Mr. Brown is just uncertain of the facts and circumstances surrounding when the invention actually got out into the public . . . he just really doesn't remember anything." The district court cited Federal Rule of Evidence 403 ("FRE") and found that Brown's testimony would be confusing to the jury.
Telegenix argues that the district court erroneously relied on Wine Railway Appliance Co. v. Enterprise Railway Equipment Co., 297 U.S. 387, 56 S.Ct. 528, 80 L.Ed. 736 (1936), in sustaining the jury's award of damages for acts of infringement dating back to 1992. Telegenix argues that it did not receive notice that it was infringing the patents in suit until 1998, and, by permitting liability for acts prior to 1998, the rule of Wine Railway undermines the notice requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 287.
The Supreme Court in Wine Railway held that the patent marking statute then in effect did not require a patentee who did not produce the patented device to give actual notice to an infringer before damages could be recovered. Although Wine Railway interpreted a predecessor to the current patent marking statute, we have applied Wine Railway to the modern statutory counterpart, 35 U.S.C. § 287. See Nike, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 138 F.3d 1437, 1443, 46 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Med. Eng'g Corp., 6 F.3d 1523, 1538, 28 USPQ2d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Bandag, Inc. v. Gerrard Tire Co., 704 F.2d 1578, 1581, 217 USPQ 977, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
35 U.S.C. § 287(a) (2000). Thus, section 287 "penalizes the use of unauthorized marks upon manufactured articles" and limits the extent to which damages may be recovered where products covered by a U.S. patent are sold without the notice defined in the statute. Wine Railway, 297 U.S. at 393, 56 S.Ct. 528. The recovery of damages is not limited where there is no failure to mark, i.e., where the proper patent notice appears on products or where there are no products to mark. Id. As the Supreme Court so aptly stated: