Opinion ID: 210959
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Bottom-Loaded Screw Models

Text: 50 DePuy argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment of non-infringement for the bottom-loaded screw models because the court reached its determination without construing the bore limitation on which the decision was based. DePuy also argues that, to the extent a de facto construction was used in the court's analysis, the construction incorrectly added a process limitation to a product claim by construing passing to mean that a screw shaft must move through the bore. DePuy argues that passing means that the screw shaft is positioned to extend through the bore and does not imply movement. Alternatively, DePuy argues that even if passing does imply movement, the screw shaft moves through a snap ring element that meets the bore limitation literally or as an equivalent. 51 Medtronic counters that DePuy's argument that passing means extending was waived because it was first advanced on a motion for reconsideration and not originally argued in opposition to Medtronic's summary judgment motion. Medtronic also counters that the district court correctly construed the bore limitation as requiring a bore that is part of the receiver chamber when a threaded screw shaft moves through it, and that such a construction does not import a process limitation into the claims. In passing, Medtronic asserts that the district court recognized that the bottom-loaded screw models also lacked the opening limitation and that this limitation provides a further basis for affirming summary judgment of non-infringement. 52 Although the district court quoted language from claim 1 of the '678 patent that included the opening limitation, it is clear that the court based its conclusion on the bore limitation and not the opening limitation. See All Models Order, slip op. at 2 (In particular, the defendant's [bottom-loaded screw models] lack `. . . the receiver chamber (7) having at one end thereof a bore for passing the threaded shaft portion (3) therethrough.'). Indeed, the entirety of the infringement analysis was focused on whether the bottom-loaded screw models possessed the bore limitation: 53 It is important to the Court's conclusion that claim 1 requires the bore, through which the threaded shaft of the screw must pass, to be part of the receiver chamber. . . . Because Medtronic's [bottom-loaded screw models] do not embody this limitation, they do not literally infringe claim 1. Nor can infringement be found through application of the doctrine of equivalents. 54 Id., slip op. at 2-3 (citations omitted). Thus, nothing in the district court's summary judgment opinion addresses the opening limitation. However, [w]e sit to review judgments, not opinions. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1540 (Fed.Cir.1983). The issue was fully argued below and has been raised by Medrad on appeal; we therefore may address the opening limitation. See Glaxo, Inc. v. TorPharm, Inc., 153 F.3d 1366, 1371-72 (Fed.Cir.1998) (When a matter comes before an appellate court following summary judgment, the appellate court is free to adopt a ground advanced by the appellee in seeking summary judgment but not adopted by the trial court.). 55 The language of claim 1 of the '678 patent claims a receiver member with a bore at one end and an opening opposite said bore (8) for inserting said screw. The claim language therefore identifies two clear requirements for the opening: (1) it must be physically located opposite from the bore and (2) it must be for inserting said screw. The specification indicates that the opening 10 and hollow cylindrical portion 11 must be of sufficient size to allow the screw head 4 to be inserted into the hollow spherical-segment-shaped portion 9. '678 patent, col. 2, ll. 21-34. Thus, when read in view of the specification, for inserting said screw is a functional limitation that requires that the opening be capable of inserting the screw. We therefore construe the opening limitation to mean that there must be an opening in the receiver member that is opposite the bore and is capable of inserting the screw. 56 Medtronic asserts—and DePuy does not contest—that the aperture at the top of the bottom-loaded screw models is not capable of inserting the screw because the diameter of that aperture is smaller than the diameter of the screw head. Medtronic argues that this aperture does not meet the requirements of the opening limitation. DePuy appears to counter that the interior space of the receiver member— and not the top aperture—meets the requirement of the opening limitation. 57 We agree with Medtronic. DePuy's theory of infringement argues that the snap ring in the bottom-loaded screw models satisfies the bore limitation. Once assembled, the interior space of the receiver member is located next to such bore, not opposite to it. The only aperture that is opposite to the bore that DePuy advances is the aperture at the top of the receiver member. However, because it is uncontested that the screw cannot be inserted through that aperture, it cannot meet the functional restriction of the opening limitation. Therefore, we conclude as a matter of law that the bottom-loaded screw models do not possess the opening limitation and affirm the district court's summary judgment on that basis. Because we affirm summary judgment of no infringement on the basis of the opening limitation, we need not address DePuy's arguments with respect to the bore limitation.