Opinion ID: 208578
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Construction of Sanitize

Text: The '676 patent claims are directed to a method for sanitizing fowl, '676 Patent col.10 l.15, and the patent explicitly states that the term sanitize denote[s] a bacterial population reduction to a level that is safe for human handling and consumption, id. at col.2 ll. 10-12. Thus, Ecolab argues that Inspexx cannot infringe the '676 patent claims because it does not and cannot make raw poultry safe for human consumption; cooking is required. The district court instructed the jury that, in the context of the '676 patent, the sanitized meat was not necessarily safe for human consumption immediately after treatment with PAA; the sanitized meat was not safe for consumption until it was cooked. Thus, Ecolab argues that [b]y incorporating a subsequent `cooking' element into the term `sanitize,' the district court overrode the express definition of `sanitize' set forth in the '676 patent. Appellant's Br. at 41. We review the district court's claim construction determination de novo, Cybor Corp., 138 F.3d at 1456, and we find Ecolab's argument unpersuasive. It is well-settled that an inventor may act as his own lexicographer to define a patent term, Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc), as FMC clearly chose to do herenotably failing to state that the invention can make poultry safe for consumption only after it is cooked. It is likewise well-settled that courts generally may not re-draft claims; we must construe the claims as written. Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1374 (Fed.Cir.2004). Ecolab relies heavily on Chef America in asserting that the district court erred when it construed sanitize. In that case, the claim at issue regarded a method for baking cookies and required heating the resulting batter-coated dough to a temperature in the range of about 400° F. to 850° F. Id. Clearly, the patentee meant that the user should set the oven so as to heat the dough at 400-850°, rather than to 400-850°; otherwise, the dough would be burned to a crisp and the claims would be nonsensical. Still, this court held that in accord with our settled practice we construe the claim as written, not as the patentees wish they had written it. As written, the claim unambiguously requires that the dough be heated to a temperature range of 400° F. to 850° F. Id. (emphasis added). Because the claim language at issue in Chef America was unambiguous, that case is distinguishable from the present case. In the present case, the definition of sanitize is ambiguous in that it does not indicate when consumption is to take place the definition does not indicate whether the consumption would occur immediately after application of PAA or, for example, at a later time after the meat is cooked. The testimony of Ecolab's expert, Dr. Tompkin, helps to resolve that ambiguity, albeit in FMC's favor. Specifically, Dr. Tompkin admitted that in-plant inspectors examine poultry that has been treated with PAA to determine if it is fit for human consumption. J.A. at 5785. Surely, the inspectors do not require the poultry to be fit for human consumption in its uncooked state. Thus, Chef America is distinguishable, and the district court did not err when it construed the term sanitize to mean that the treated meat has become safe for human handling and post-cooking consumption. In summary, FMC did not, via an explicit or implicit disclaimer, limit the claims to the use of compositions containing PAA as the only antimicrobial agent, and FMC's claims do not require that PAA-treated fowl be safe for immediate raw consumption. Thus, we affirm the district court's denial of Ecolab's motion for JMOL of noninfringement.