Opinion ID: 211308
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Original Design

Text: In its summary judgment opinion, the district court concluded that the original design calculators were missing at least two limitations of claim 1. First, the court found that “the calculators do not have projections on the inner surface of both sides of the housing about which the lid rotates.” Summary Judgment Order, slip op. at 10. Second, in noting that the calculators do not have projections, the court also stated that they “do not have flanges with hinge-forming trunnions (pins or pivots) that are distinct components.” Id. Third, the court concluded by observing that the calculators “only appear to have a single flange with an inwardly facing structural element.” Id. Literal infringement requires that each and every limitation set forth in a claim appear in an accused product. Frank’s Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. v. Weatherford Int’l, Inc., 389 F.3d 1370, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Becton Dickinson & Co. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 922 F.2d 792, 796 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). With regard to the district court’s first finding, it is not entirely clear to us whether the court’s conclusion that the original design calculators lacked projections on the inner surface of both sides of the housing was based on the incorrect understanding that a trunnion could not consist of a projection containing a recess. Because it appears that the district court’s finding may have been based on that incorrect understanding, we are unable to discern on this record whether this issue (i.e., the factual determination of whether the original design 05-1173, -1216 16 calculators include “trunnions” as that term has been construed by this panel) is amenable to summary judgment or whether genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether the original design calculators practice this claim limitation. Second, the parties apparently agree that there is no prohibition on the trunnions and flanges being formed as one integral piece. (See Pls.-Cross Appellants’ Br. 52.) It appears that the district court’s comment about trunnions and flanges being “distinct components” was not made in an attempt to further construe the claim terms, but rather in response to submissions by CCL which purported to label the same structure as both a flange and a trunnion. While there is no question that the trunnions and flanges must be distinctly identifiable, it is also clear that they are related. For example, the trunnions are identified in the specification as being parts of the flanges, “the housing 12 includes a pair of upwardly extending flange elements 24, 26 at opposite sides thereof, each of which includes a short inwardly extending trunnion-like projection 28, 30.” ’085 patent, col. 4, ll. 9-13. Thus, if the district court meant this statement as a comment in response to CCL’s submissions, namely that the trunnions and flanges be distinctly identifiable, then we agree. If, on the other hand, the district court meant this statement to be another limitation of the claim rather than a comment on CCL’s submissions, we find that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the flanges and trunnions in the original design are distinctly identifiable so that summary judgment based on this reason alone is not appropriate. Accordingly, at least some additional clarification is required. Third, the court also concluded that the original design “appears” to contain only a single flange with an inwardly facing structural element or projection, whereas the 05-1173, -1216 17 claims require “a pair of flanges[,]” each of which containing a trunnion formed on the inwardly facing surface. See, e.g., ’085 patent, col. 7, ll. 7-10. Even if we were to accept the district court’s statement as a definitive finding that the original design contains only a single flange with a trunnion, we must vacate the district court’s conclusion as it is unclear whether the court applied an erroneous construction of the “trunnions” term because the court has failed to set forth what, if any, structure the original design calculators have on the other side of the housing. Thus, we cannot determine in the first instance if whatever structure there may be qualifies as a trunnion. Notably, we express no opinion with respect to whether summary judgment may ultimately be appropriate in light of the clarified claim construction rulings and their subsequent effect on the summary judgment order of the district court. We leave that determination to the district court in the first instance after considering any subsequent summary judgment briefing or argument by the parties that the court may deem necessary. If genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether the original design calculators posses each and every limitation of the claims, then the appropriate conclusion is to deny summary judgment and let the facts be decided at trial.