Opinion ID: 757289
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Construction of the Term Well

Text: 26 Mantech here challenges the district court's construction of the claim term well. According to Mantech, the district court improperly limited well as used in the claims to the dual-function structure disclosed in the preferred embodiment. Mantech initially asserts on appeal that the proper construction of the term well as used in the patents in suit is any device that allows access to groundwater. Mantech refers specifically to the '141 patent at column 6, lines 20-24, which states that [i]t will be appreciated that a monitoring flow can be withdrawn from the well, as can a treating or test flow be injected via the well into the groundwater which the well intersects, to show that a well as used in the patents does not have to both monitor and inject. Mantech emphasizes the use of the word can in the specification instead of must or shall to indicate that each function is possible but is not required. 27 Hudson asserts that another patent term, borehole, describes a structure by which groundwater merely is accessed, and applying that construction to well would make use of the term borehole elsewhere in the specification unnecessary and hence contrary to the expressed intent of the inventor. 28 Under proper claim construction methodology, we look first to the language of the claims. See Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 619, 34 U.S.P.Q.2d 1816, 1819 (Fed.Cir.1995). For example, step (a) of claim 1 of the '141 patent requires:(a) providing a plurality of mutually spaced wells intersecting said groundwater region; 29 '141 pat., col. 8., ll. 27-28. This limitation itself requires neither monitoring nor injecting at any of the mutually spaced wells. Step (b), however, requires: 30 (b) determining the existence of acceptable continuity and well interflow paths for said region by generating a test flow of a solution of hydrogen peroxide from one of said wells and monitoring pH changes at each other of said wells as a function of time to detect a pH drop of at least 0.2; and 8 31 Id. at col. 8, ll. 29-34 (emphasis added). The emphasized phrases indicate that one well must be used for testing, i.e., injecting the test fluid, and the rest of the wells for monitoring. Step (c) then requires: 32 (c) subsequent to detecting said pH drop, providing a treating flow of said hydrogen peroxide solution from one or more of said wells. 33 Id. at col. 8, ll. 35-37 (emphasis added). The second emphasized phrase indicates that only one well need be used for providing the treating flow, i.e., injecting the treating flow; all the wells need not inject. Indeed, all but that one well could merely monitor. Step (c), therefore, could read on several alternative systems, ones with only dual function wells, ones with only single function wells, and ones with some single function and some dual function wells. For example, in an array of four wells, well A might inject only and wells B, C, & D monitor only. First, A would inject the test fluid while the others monitored. Then, A would inject the treating fluid. Claim 1 would read literally on this system. 34 As the district court correctly determined, therefore, a method in which all of the wells both monitored and injected would be covered by this claim. Mantech, however, conceded at trial that Defendants' wells do not all perform both functions. The construction of well originally asserted by Mantech, i.e., any device that provides access to groundwater, is too broad because it would include structures that neither monitor nor inject. All the wells recited in claim 1 perform at least one such function. A structure which merely provides access, therefore, is not a well covered by claim 1. A system incorporating wells that either monitor or inject and possibly, but not necessarily, do both, however, still would be covered by claim 1 of the '141 patent and claim 1 of the '483 patent. 9 35 Finally, we must look to the written description, to determine what one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood the term as used in the patent to mean. 10 See Markman, 52 F.3d at 983, 34 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1335. If the written description supports the definition of the term that is apparent from the claim limitation, then reading in a further limiting definition would be improper. 36 The wells are introduced in the written description as monitoring and injecting wells, '141 pat., col. 5, ll. 34-35, and, indeed, the preferred embodiment of the invention as shown in Figure 3 discloses a well that both monitors and injects. This passage is consistent with the wells as performing both monitoring and injecting; it hardly mandates, however, that each and every well used to perform the method must both inject and monitor. Later it is stated that a monitoring flow can be withdrawn from the well, as can a treating or test flow be injected via the well into the groundwater which the well intersects. Id. at col. 6, ll. 20-24. This passage indicates that the inventor expressed an intent that a well be used for either injecting or monitoring, or both. 37 Hence, although the definition of well adopted by the district court, a structure used for both monitoring and injecting the groundwater, CleanOX, slip op. at 43, may at first seem to be in accordance with the language of the specification, it is actually narrower than that intended by the inventor when the entire patent is read in light of the nature of the invention as described and claimed. The claims do not require such a narrow construction of the term well and neither does the written description. In fact, both support a broader construction. 38 The district court erred because it, in essence, incorporated from the preferred embodiment into the claims a narrow definition for the claim term well, as a structure used for both monitoring and injecting groundwater. CleanOX, slip op. at 43 (emphasis added). In the context of the written description and the claims, however, it is clear that the term well has a more inclusive meaning than that given by the district court: as used in the patents, a well is a structure connecting the surface to the groundwater that can either monitor or inject, or both, but it need not do both. 39 We thus hold that the meaning of the claim term well in the patents in suit is a structure that enables either monitoring or injecting of groundwater, or both. 11 Therefore, the methods practiced by the Defendants could indeed infringe the patents, contrary to the district court's summary judgment. We therefore vacate the district court's summary judgment of noninfringement and remand the case for further determination of infringement consistent with the correct claim construction. 12 40