Opinion ID: 6112100
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: “Driven Position”

Text: During claim construction, the parties disputed the meaning of the claimed “driven position” in the ’296, ’297, ’722, and ’282 patents. 7 That dispute centered around whether the construction included positions “at or near the bottom-most travel position” (Kyocera’s stance) or was limited to the singular position “at the bottom most-travel position” (Koki’s stance). The ALJ adopted the latter construction. And based on the ALJ’s construction, Kyocera did not press direct infringement for the ’296, ’297, ’722, and ’282 patents. Kyocera claims the ALJ’s construction is incorrect. We do not agree.
We review claim construction de novo and review any subsidiary factual findings based on extrinsic evidence for substantial evidence. Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 873 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning, which is the meaning one of ordinary skill in the art would ascribe to a term when read in the context of the claim, specification, and prosecution history. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own 6 We need not decide in this case the extent to which a person of ordinary skill in the art may rely on the testimony or information supplied by others in reaching conclusions as to infringement or invalidity. This case presents no such issue. 7 These patents share a written description, so without loss of generality, we cite only the ’296 patent’s specification. Case: 20-1046 Document: 87 Page: 14 Filed: 01/21/2022 14 KYOCERA SENCO INDUS. TOOLS INC v. ITC lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning” and must “clearly express an intent to redefine the term.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Acting as their own lexicographers, the patentees defined “driven position”: Referring now to FIG. 3, the piston is depicted at its bottom-most travel position, and in this configuration, the displacement volume 76 and the main storage chamber 74 are at their largest combined volumes, while the cylinder venting chamber 94 is at its minimum volume. This bottom position is also sometimes referred to herein as the “driven position.” ’296 patent at 12:56–61 (emphasis added). Nothing about this statement suggests the “bottom position” is merely an example of a driven position. It is the driven position. Nor does “this bottom position” refer back to “this configuration.” Most naturally, “this bottom position” refers back to the only prior mention of the word bottom—the “bottommost travel position.” As the bottom-most travel position, this location must be a single position. The surrounding written description language supports this interpretation. It explains how various chambers are either at their minimum or maximum volume when the piston and driver are at their driven positions. See, e.g., ’296 patent at 12:56–60, 62–64; see also id. at 26:43–54 (“[T]he displacement volume 457 and the main storage chamber 454 are at their largest combined volumes, while the cylinder venting chamber 492 is at its Case: 20-1046 Document: 87 Page: 15 Filed: 01/21/2022 KYOCERA SENCO INDUS. TOOLS INC v. ITC 15 minimum volume.”). There can be only one minimum and one maximum volume for each chamber, so this context suggests the “driven position” must be a single position. Accordingly, a construction like Kyocera’s that includes a range of positions “near the bottom-most travel position” would be inconsistent with the written description. The written description’s discussion of figure 20 does not alter or expand this definition. That discussion is nearly identical to the discussion of figure 3, except that it includes the words “near or at”: Referring again to FIG. 20, the piston 458 is de- picted near or at its bottom-most travel position, and in this configuration, the displacement volume 457 and the main storage chamber are at their largest combined volume, while the cylinder venting chamber 492 is at its minimum volume. This bottom position is also sometimes referred to herein as the “driven position.” Id. at 26:43–49 (emphasis added). The “near or at” language in this portion of the written description explains what is depicted in the figure, rather than what is defined as the “driven position.” Like the written description of figure 3, this passage defines “driven position” as “[t]his bottom position,” referring back to the singular “bottom-most travel position.” And the surrounding language again notes how volumes of certain chambers are minimized or maximized when the piston is at this position. Figure 20 is therefore consistent with, and in fact supports, the patentees’ lexicography. Because the patentee clearly defined “driven position” in the written description, that definition controls. See Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. Thus, like the ALJ below, we construe “driven position” as “at the bottom-most travel position.” Case: 20-1046 Document: 87 Page: 16 Filed: 01/21/2022 16 KYOCERA SENCO INDUS. TOOLS INC v. ITC