Opinion ID: 211222
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Agreement 1(b)(ii)

Text: 36 The district court ruled as a matter of law that the accused device did not infringe the '732 patent because it was missing the opening, projection, and abutment portion limitations. On appeal, Panduit argues that each limitation can be found in the accused product as shown below in Panduit's Figure 3: 37 NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE 38 Because we conclude that the accused device does not contain the opening limitation, and because the grant of summary judgment of no breach of ¶ 1(b)(ii) based on non-infringement was proper on that basis alone, we need not reach the other disputed claim terms. 39 With respect to the opening limitation, the district court stated in its summary judgment opinion that the opening must be in the descended portion [of the abutment portion], and cannot be in the top portion's end portion. The court also concluded that the limitation requires a solid abutment portion and solid side wall; and that while the '732 Patent permits substantial leniency in how wide or narrow the opening must be, the term `formed in' means that `the aperture and opening cannot be so wide such that the corresponding abutment portion or side wall ceases to exist.' Although in its claim construction order the district court held that the opening need not be bounded on all sides (including the top), in analyzing the accused product, the district court held that the open space identified by Plaintiff clearly does not descend or hang down from any structure, and is not `formed in' the projection's abutment portion as construed. 40 Panduit argues that the claims do not require that the opening descend or hang down from any structure and that the district court improperly imported this limitation from the preferred embodiment, in which the opening is bounded at the top. Specifically, Panduit argues that we must construe formed in consistently throughout the specification, that formed in means made within a cross-section of or created within an exterior surface or dimension of, and that nothing requires the opening to be bounded at its top. Panduit asserts that the opening in the accused device is bounded by the two illegible character-shaped surfaces and the horizontal section, or between the inner legs of the two illegible character -shaped surfaces. 41 Citing the preferred embodiment, HellermannTyton counters that the opening must hang off of the top portion of the projection because it must be in the abutment portion of the projection, which itself must hang. HellermannTyton asserts that what Panduit refers to as an opening is not in a hanging portion of the structure because there is nothing from which the abutment portion hangs. Moreover, HellermannTyton argues that because the horizontal structure and two illegible character-shaped surfaces are not coplanar, there is no opening formed in the abutment. 42 In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-17. Here, the opening limitation is defined by two recitations in the claim language. First, the opening must be formed in an abutment portion of the projection. To be formed in an abutment portion of the projection requires us to determine the location of an abutment portion. According to the claim, an abutment portion is located to depend[ ] from the furthest extent of the top portion of the projection. See '732 patent, col. 7, ll. 19-21. Although Panduit challenges what constitutes an abutment portion, it does not dispute that to depend from the top portion, an abutment portion must hang down or descend from such top portion. We agree. Therefore, to be formed in an abutment portion, the opening must be formed in an area that hangs down— i.e., extends downward—from a top portion of the projection. Second, the claim language requires that the opening be in communication with an aperture formed in the side wall. We agree with the district court—and the parties do not dispute—that in communication simply requires a passage through which wires may be routed. 43 This construction is consistent with the written description, which describes an opening formed in the abutment portion of the projection which is in communication with an aperture formed in a side wall and an abutment portion which depends from the furthest extent of the top portion. '732 patent, col. 2, ll. 30-36. Although in the preferred embodiment depicted in Figure 4, the aperture 82 formed in the side wall 40 is not bounded at the top, this does not suggest that the opening 80 formed in the abutment portion 74 does not require a top portion. See '732 patent, col. 4, ll. 46-52. An abutment portion, unlike a side wall, is described consistently by both the claim language and the written description as depending— i.e., extending downward—from a top portion of the projection. '732 patent, col. 2, ll. 30-31, col. 7, ll. 19-21. To be formed in an area that extends downward from a top portion of the projection necessarily requires that the opening be bounded at top. The prosecution history is consistent with this interpretation and provides no further guidance. 44 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the opening must be formed in an area that extends downward from a top portion of the projection and must provide a passage through which wires may pass. 45 Comparing the properly construed claim to the accused device, see Cybor Corp., 138 F.3d at 1454, we note that neither of the two openings argued by Panduit qualify as an opening according to the language of the claim. First, the openings bounded on three sides by each illegible character-shaped surface fail to meet the opening limitation. Although these openings are formed in an abutment portion, the openings and the aperture are not in communication because wires cannot pass through either of these openings and into an aperture in the side wall. Second, the open space between each of the illegible character-shaped surfaces fails. Although this open space may be in communication with an aperture in the side wall, it does not extend downward from a top portion of the projection, and therefore is not formed in the abutment portion. 46 Moreover, even if the horizontal surface argued by Panduit is included as part of the abutment portion, the accused device would still not meet this limitation. The abutment portion is located extending downward from a top portion of the projection. Accordingly, for the horizontal surface to be considered an abutment portion, the top surface of the curved flange must be considered a top portion of the projection. The opening argued by Panduit would therefore occur above the top portion of the projection and not be formed in the abutment portion at all. We agree with the district court that there is no genuine issue of material fact that the accused device does not literally infringe the '732 patent. 47 Moreover, the doctrine of equivalents cannot be applied here. Application of the doctrine of equivalents is limited by the all elements rule, which provides that the doctrine of equivalents does not apply if applying the doctrine would vitiate an entire claim limitation. Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Emtrak, Inc., 402 F.3d 1188, 1195 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citing Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 29, 117 S.Ct. 1040, 137 L.Ed.2d 146 (1997)). Claim 1 of the '732 patent requires an opening in an abutment portion through which wires may pass from a trunking duct into an offset power box. To extend the scope of the claim to encompass an accused device in which wires bypass the abutment portion altogether would necessarily read the opening limitation out of the claim. See Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Eon Labs Mfg., 363 F.3d 1306, 1312 (Fed.Cir.2004) (holding that a particulate dispersion inside the body cannot infringe under the doctrine of equivalents because it would vitiate the claimed requirement that the dispersion be prepared outside the body). The doctrine of equivalents cannot be applied because it would vitiate the opening limitation of the claim. 48 Because we conclude that the accused device does not infringe claim 1 of the '732 patent, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment that the accused device is not a Subject Product as defined by ¶ 1(b)(ii) of the Agreement.