Opinion ID: 2810823
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “voltage source means”

Text: As noted above, the district court initially construed the “voltage source means” limitation in claim 1 of the ’529 patent as a means-plus-function limitation. Based on this conclusion, the court looked for a disclosed structure in the specification to correspond to the voltage source function, but found none. These combined conclusions rendered the patent invalid as indefinite. After Lighting Ballast filed a motion for reconsideration, the district court reversed course, finding that its initial construction of “voltage source means” was incorrect. The district court noted that its prior ruling “unduly discounted the unchallenged expert testimony” and “exalted form over substance and disregarded the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Lighting Ballast Control, LLC 10 LIGHTING BALLAST CONTROL LLC v. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., No. 7:09-cv-29, 2010 WL 4946343, at ,  (N.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2010). The district court cited testimony from an expert for Lighting Ballast, Dr. Victor Roberts, and the inventor, Andrzej Bobel, both of whom testified that one of skill in the art would understand the claimed “voltage source means” to correspond to a rectifier, which converts alternating current (“AC”) to direct current (“DC”), or other structure capable of supplying useable voltage to the device. Thus, the district court concluded that the term “voltage source means” had sufficient structure to avoid the strictures of § 112 ¶ 6. The district court reconfirmed this finding when it denied ULT’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity, expressly stating it would not consider the question again. ULT argues that the district court erred when it held that the term “voltage source means” is not governed by § 112 ¶ 6, both in response to Lighting Ballast’s motion for reconsideration and in response to ULT’s later motion for summary judgment. ULT contends that the extrinsic evidence presented by Lighting Ballast and accepted by the district court cannot overcome the presumption that the term is in means-plus-function format for two reasons. First, ULT believes that Lighting Ballast failed to identify intrinsic evidence showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand “voltage source means” to be structural. Second, ULT contends that, at best, “voltage source means” refers to any structure capable of performing that function rather than the definite structure of a rectifier, as employed in ULT’s products. ULT contends that, because the written description of the specification fails to disclose structure corresponding to the claimed function of the “voltage source means” and the extrinsic evidence offered did not adequately identify a single structure, the asserted claims are invalid. Citing Rule 51 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Lighting Ballast argues that ULT waived any argument regarding the proper construction of “voltage source LIGHTING BALLAST CONTROL LLC v. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS 11 NORTH AMERICA means” by failing to raise the issue in either its pre- or post-verdict motions for judgment as a matter of law. Lighting Ballast also argues that Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180 (2011), prevents ULT from appealing the denial of ULT’s summary judgment motion regarding indefiniteness because Ortiz forbids a party from appealing from an order denying summary judgment after a full trial on the merits. In the alternative, Lighting Ballast argues that the district court’s construction was correct because this court’s precedent allows “use of even purely functional claim language to show that the limitation as a whole suggests structure.” Appellee’s Resp. Br. at 40. Lighting Ballast contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize the implicit disclosure of a rectifier in the “voltage source means” limitation. Lighting Ballast concludes that ULT cannot show clear error in the district court’s consideration of the extrinsic evidence in reaching the conclusion that ULT failed to meet its burden to prove the ’529 patent invalid as indefinite. As a preliminary matter, we reject Lighting Ballast’s argument that ULT waived its argument regarding “voltage source means” because ULT was not required to object to claim construction under Rule 51 after ULT made its claim construction position clear to the court and the court rejected it. We disagree that Ortiz v. Jordan controls here. Ortiz addressed a circumstance in which a trial court denied summary judgment on grounds that material issues of fact prevented judgment as a matter of law. In those circumstances, the defendant remained obliged to present its argument to the trier of fact and failure to do so prevented raising it on appeal. While the third and final time the district court addressed the issue of indefiniteness based on the term “voltage source means” was in the context of summary judgment, the issue of whether a claim term is governed by § 112 ¶ 6 is a claim construction issue. Personalized Media Commc’n, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 702 (Fed. Cir. 12 LIGHTING BALLAST CONTROL LLC v. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA 1998) (“[w]hether certain claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 is an exercise in claim construction”); see also Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On Inc., 769 F.3d 1094, 1098 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[d]etermining whether certain claim language invokes § 112, ¶ 6 is an exercise in claim construction”) (internal quotations omitted). And claim construction is an issue for the court, not the jury. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 391 (1996). When the district court denied ULT’s motion for summary judgment, it did not conclude that issues of fact precluded judgment; it effectively entered judgment of validity to Lighting Ballast. We conclude that ULT did not waive its argument that the asserted claims are invalid for indefiniteness. It is generally accepted that a district court’s claim construction order is within the class of decisions that do not terminate litigation and yet may be appealed upon resolution of the case and issuance of a final judgment. See, e.g., O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding that under Fifth Circuit law the appellants’ arguments on appeal regarding claim construction were not waived even though appellants did not object to the jury instructions because the arguments were made clear to the district court and the district court did not clearly indicate that it was open to changing its claim construction) (citation omitted); Creo Prod., Inc. v. Presstek, Inc., 305 F.3d 1337, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that party preserved its indefiniteness argument regarding the application of § 112 ¶ 6 for appeal because the district court resolved the issue prior to appeal). As ULT points out in its brief, ULT argued before the district court that the asserted claims were indefinite under § 112 ¶ 2 because the term “voltage source means” was governed by § 112 ¶ 6 and lacked corresponding structure in the written description. The district court addressed this issue during claim construction proceedings. The district court initially accepted LIGHTING BALLAST CONTROL LLC v. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS 13 NORTH AMERICA ULT’s position, J.A. 804-15, reversed itself thereafter, id. at 16-24, and declined to resolve the issue a third time when ULT moved for summary judgment on this issue, id. at 62. This is sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal. Rule 51 does not change this result where a party’s position on claim construction is made clear before the district court and the district court has rejected that position. See Taita Chem. Co., Ltd. v. Westlake Styrene, LP, 351 F.3d 663, 667-68 (5th Cir. 2003) (stating that a party may be excused from objecting to a jury charge under Rule 51 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure where the party’s position is clear from the record and the district court made clear that a further objection would be unavailing, such as where a party previously filed objections and the district court made clear no more objections would be heard); Lang v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 624 F.2d 1275, 1279 (5th Cir. 1980) (“[Rule 51 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] is not without exceptions, [ ] and the failure to object [to the jury charge] may be disregarded if the party’s position has previously been made clear to the court and it is plain that a further objection would have been unavailing.”); see also Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 381 F.3d 1371, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“When the claim construction is resolved pre-trial, and the patentee presented the same position in the Markman proceeding as is now pressed, a further objection to the district court’s pre-trial ruling may indeed have been not only futile but unnecessary. . . . Objection under Rule 51 [of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] was not required to preserve the right to appeal the Markman ruling.”) (under Seventh Circuit law). ULT was not required to object to the jury instructions to preserve this issue for appeal because it made clear to the district court its position on the issue and the issue was finally resolved by the district court prior to trial. 14 LIGHTING BALLAST CONTROL LLC v. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA Having addressed the preliminary issue of waiver, we now move to the merits. The district court made findings of fact based on extrinsic evidence. See Teva, 574 U.S. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 842. Under the circumstances, it was not legal error for the district court to rely on extrinsic evidence, because the extrinsic evidence was “not used to contradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005). For example, the district court determined that “while the ‘voltage source means’ term does not denote a specific structure, it is nevertheless understood by persons of skill in the lighting ballast design art to connote a class of structures, namely a rectifier, or structure to rectify the AC power line into a DC voltage for the DC input terminals.” J.A. 22. The district court went on to note that the language following “voltage source means” in the claim—“providing a constant or variable magnitude DC voltage between the DC input terminals”—“when read by one familiar with the use and function of a lighting ballast, such as the one disclosed by the 529 Patent, [sic] would understand a rectifier is, at least in common uses, the only structure that would provide ‘a constant or variable magnitude DC voltage’”. Id. at 23. The district court further noted that “[i]t is clear to one skilled in the art that to provide a DC voltage when the source is a power line, which provides an AC voltage, a structure to rectify the line is required and is clear from the language of the ‘voltage source means’ term.” Id. We defer to these factual findings, absent a showing that they are clearly erroneous. The district court’s factual findings are supported by the record. Specifically, these factual findings are supported by the testimony of Dr. Roberts and Mr. Bobel. Mr. Bobel testified in his deposition that the “voltage source means” limitation connotes a rectifier to one skilled in the art. Mr. Bobel further explained that a battery could likewise provide the necessary DC supply LIGHTING BALLAST CONTROL LLC v. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS 15 NORTH AMERICA voltage described in the patent. Similarly, Dr. Roberts explained that the “voltage source means” limitation suggests to him a sufficient structure, or class of structures, namely a rectifier if converting AC from a “power line source” to DC for a “DC supply voltage” or a battery if providing the DC supply voltage directly to the DC input terminals. This expert testimony supports a conclusion that the limitations convey a defined structure to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC, 641 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Because the district court’s factual findings demonstrate that the claims convey sufficient structure, the district court was correct to conclude that the term “voltage source means” is not governed by § 112 ¶ 6. As such, we affirm the district court’s decision concerning “voltage source means.”