Opinion ID: 146222
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court’s Claim Construction

Text: We turn next to the district court’s construction of the claims of the ’886 patent. Claim construction is a matter of law which we review without deference. Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). When exercising the power to review claim construction, this court determines the meaning and scope of the relevant claim language and decides whether the district court's determination of the meaning and scope of the relevant claim language is coterminous with that construction. Where it is not, the district court has erred in its construction of the claims. Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 2009-1367 12 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, in reviewing a district court's claim construction, this court takes into account the views of the trial judge. Nazomi, 403 F.3d at 1371. Though we review those views and the record de novo, “common sense dictates that the trial judge's view will carry weight.” Id. (quoting Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Plager, J., concurring)). The district court issued its claim construction order on April 11, 2008. At issue in this appeal are independent claim 17 and dependent claim 19 of the ’866 patent. The district court construed these claims as follows: Claim 17 of the '886 Patent Construction A shoulder supported harness assembly for A harness device that allows the user to supporting percussion instruments, support a percussion instrument. comprising: a shoulder supported carrier structure for The piece of the device that connects on supporting percussion instruments having the user's back to the back member and changeable or adjustable shoulder which then sits on the user's shoulders supporting members for securing said and performs the function of supporting structure on the shoulders of a user; and the balance of the device while allowing the user to adjust the upper section of the device relative to the lower section and to replace, remove or substitute the shoulder supporting members with other shoulder supporting members of different sizes, a back member that spans across and A back bar that spans across the user's is secured to each of the shoulder back to connect to each end of the supporting members. shoulder supporting members. Claim 19 of the '886 Patent Construction The securing mechanism from claim The securing mechanism refers to a 17 wherein the securing mechanism locking mechanism that is applied to locks the orientation of the shoulder the back member and shoulder supporting members and the back supporting members such that they are member. affixed together in a manner that precludes any change in orientation, 2009-1367 13
otherwise locked. DEG argues that the district court erred in its claim construction because it failed to define the claim limitation of “changeable or adjustable shoulder supporting members.” Specifically, argues DEG, the court erred in removing the “adjustability” feature of the “shoulder supporting members” and thus broadened the scope of the claim to cover any adjustable drum carrier borne on the shoulders of the drummer. According to DEG, the court erroneously applied the limitation of “adjustability” to the carrier as a whole, rather than to the shoulder pieces specifically. Consequently, under the district court’s claim construction, as long as the adjustability feature can be found somewhere on the harness such that the upper section can be adjusted relative to the lower section, the adjustability limitation of the claim is met. Since the district court provided no explanation of the reasoning behind its claim construction, and since we review claim construction de novo, we look first to intrinsic evidence in construing the claims, i.e., the language of the claims themselves, the written description portion of the specification, and the prosecution history. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582-83 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The critical claim language in claim 17 is “a shoulder supported carrier structure … having changeable or adjustable shoulder supporting members for securing said structure on the shoulders of a user.” The language of the claim expressly teaches more than one “shoulder supporting member” and this language most clearly maps onto those portions of the harness that support the harness over the shoulder, viz., the two arched shoulder pieces. These likewise reasonably correspond to the “shoulder straps” described in the specification of the ’886 patent. The chest piece and the back bar can be excluded from 2009-1367 14 this claim limitation because they are singular pieces and do not come into contact the shoulders of the drummer. Furthermore, the back bar is separately defined in the following limitations of the claim. The additional chest pieces and the drum carrier brackets comprise the remainder of the “shoulder supported carrier structure” of claim 17. Moreover, the claim language teaches that the shoulder supporting members should be “changeable” or “adjustable”: these terms immediately precede the term “shoulder supporting members” and the only reasonable construction, therefore, is that these shoulder supporting members themselves, rather than the entire assembly, should be adjustable or changeable. And, in the specification of the ’886 patent, the “shoulder straps” which correspond to the shoulder supporting members of claim 17, are not immovably or irretrievably fixed to the back bar and other portions of the supporting carrier, but rather are adjustable or removable so as to be interchangeable with other shoulder straps. For example, the specification describes one preferred embodiment in which the: “[v]est portion (the remainder of the carrier corresponding to the chest pieces) is removably secured to [the] shoulder straps by screws or bolts and has a pair of J-rod receptacles secured by screws or bolts.” Likewise, a second embodiment is described in which the: [b]ack support or back member as shown in this figure is removably secured to shoulder straps by screws bolts or threaded fasteners and has padding. Bolts extend out from the removable back member, and extend into elongated slots located in the shoulder straps to allow for width adjustment on one or both shoulder straps. Alternately slots may be incorporated into the back member, and a square neck carriage bolt may be used in prevent rotation of the bolt when tightening the nut. The back member may be secured to removable shoulder straps. Removable shoulder straps of various sizes can be used to accommodate different size users. 2009-1367 15 Vest portion is adjustably and removably secured to shoulder straps by screws or bolts which extend through elongated slots which permits adjustment of the straps relative to vest portion. And in every other embodiment described in the specification, the shoulder straps are described and depicted as being changeable or adjustable (or both). Even in those embodiments wherein the shoulder straps are spot welded to the back bar, they are still adjustable or removable with respect to the anterior vest portion of the harness. We hold, therefore, that the district court erred in its construction of claim 17 (and, consequently, in its construction of dependent claim 19 as well). The district court’s elision of the claim limitation (supported by the specification) that the shoulder supporting members are either changeable or adjustable is legal error because all the limitations in a claim must be considered meaningful. Cablestrand Corp. v. Wallshein, 29 F.3d 644 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We therefore amend the district court’s language in the portion of its construction of Claim 17 which reads: The piece of the device that connects on the user's back to the back member and which then sits on the user's shoulders and performs the function of supporting the balance of the device while allowing the user to adjust the upper section of the device relative to the lower section and to replace, remove or substitute the shoulder supporting members with other shoulder supporting members of different sizes to read: The adjustable or changeable pieces of the device that rest on the user's shoulders and perform the function of supporting the balance of the device and which connect the back member, situated against the user’s back, with the upper portion of the device that rests on the user’s chest. III. The District Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment for May and Denial of DEG’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Literal Non-Infringement. 2009-1367 16 Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Thus, summary judgment may be granted when no “reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In deciding whether summary judgment was appropriate, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the opposing party and resolve doubts in its favor. Ethicon EndoSurgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 149 F.3d 1309, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 1998). DEG’s Dynasty P20-DAST V-Bar Snare Drum Carrier (the “harness”) is one of the accused devices at issue in this appeal and is typical in all relevant respects. The harness consists of two curved shoulder pieces, each of which is welded to an end of the horizontal back bar at the rear of the device. The curved shoulder pieces arc forward over the wearer’s shoulders where each is welded to an arm of a Y-shaped chest piece in front. The Y-shaped chest piece is bolted in turn to a triangular middle chest piece through one of a series of holes in each. The middle chest piece is bolted in turn to an oblate lower chest piece via a series of three elongate slots in the lower portion of the middle chest piece. Finally, each of the two J-shaped drum carrier brackets is bolted to the lower chest piece via one of several pairs of holes in the lower chest piece. The harness is adjustable to the drummer’s height in several ways: (1) by selecting different holes by which to bolt the Y-shaped chest piece to the middle chest piece; (2) by tightening the three bolts connecting the middle and lower chest pieces at different positions along the slots in the middle chest piece; (3) by choosing different 2009-1367 17 pairs of holes by which to attach the drum carrier brackets to the lower chest piece; and (4) by adjusting the length of the legs of the drum carrier brackets at the point of their attachment to the lower chest piece. Most importantly for the purposes of this appeal, the back bar, shoulder pieces, and Y-shaped chest piece of the accused devices are all welded together, and consequently form a fixed, inflexible, and non-adjustable unit. Consequently, the shoulder supporting members of DEG’s accused device are neither changeable nor adjustable. True, the entire welded structure (i.e., the back bar, shoulder members, and Y-shaped chest piece combined) could be removed from the remainder of the harness and interchanged with another such piece. But the language of both the claim and the specification expressly teaches that the shoulder supporting members/shoulder straps are themselves adjustable or changeable. In DEG’s device, they are not. Given our new construction of Claim 17 supra, DEG’s accused device cannot reasonably be said to literally infringe May’s ’866 patent. The ’866 patent discloses shoulder supporting members that are changeable or adjustable, whereas those of DEG’s harness are not adjustable and cannot be changed without simultaneously jettisoning the back bar and Y-shaped chest piece at the same time. Literal infringement requires that the accused device literally embodies every limitation of the claim. Kraft Foods, Inc. v. Int'l Trading Co., 203 F.3d 1362, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Since the DEG harness’ shoulder supporting members do not embody Claim 17’s limitations of being adjustable or changeable, they do not literally infringe the ’866 patent. Consequently, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment of 2009-1367 18 literal infringement to May and also reverse the district court’s denial of DEG’s motion for summary judgment of literal non-infringement. IV. The District Court’s Interpretation of the 2003 Agreement Finally, DEG argues that the district court erred in its interpretation of the 2003 Agreement. Although the holding above renders this issue moot, in the interests of completeness, we will address it. The language of the 2003 Agreement at issue states: DEG Music .... agrees not to manufacture, distribute, or sell, directly or indirectly, any products that infringe the '583 Patent or any and all Letters Patent, which may be granted in the United States and all foreign countries, and any reissue, reexamination, continuation, contlnuation-inpart, division or extension thereof. The 2003 Agreement expressly adopts California law. The district court found that the relevant language of the 2003 Agreement was clear and unambiguous and that the 2003 Agreement prohibits DEG from infringing any and all patents (including the ’886 patent), not just the ’583 patent and its lineage. Consequently, the district court granted summary judgment of breach of contract against DEG. DEG advances the argument that the district court erred in not considering parol evidence offered in the form of a declaration by DEG’s president, Mark Schafer (the “Schafer declaration”). California law requires at least a preliminary consideration of all credible evidence offered to prove the intention of the parties. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co., 442 P.2d 641, 645. (Cal. 1968). Under California law: ‘The test of admissibility of extrinsic evidence to explain the meaning of a written instrument is not whether it appears to the court to be plain and 2009-1367 19 unambiguous on its face, but whether the offered evidence is relevant to prove a meaning to which the language of the instrument is reasonably susceptible.’ To determine whether offered evidence is relevant to prove such a meaning the court must consider all credible evidence offered to prove the intention of the parties. ‘If the court decides, after considering this evidence, that the language of a contract, in the light of all the circumstances, is ‘fairly susceptible of either one of the two interpretations contended for’, extrinsic evidence to prove either of such meanings is admissible. Delta Dynamics, Inc. v. Arioto, 446 P.2d 785, 787 (Cal. 1968) (quoting Pacific Gas, 442 P.2d at 645). Furthermore: Although extrinsic evidence is not admissible to add to, detract from, or vary the terms of a written contract, these terms must first be determined before it can be decided whether or not extrinsic evidence is being offered for a prohibited purpose. The fact that the terms of an instrument appear clear to a judge does not preclude the possibility that the parties chose the language of the instrument to express different terms. Pacific Gas, 442 P.2d at 645. Accordingly, the court was required to consider whether the parol evidence offered was credible to prove the intentions of May and DEG with respect to the 2003 Agreement and to define the terms of the contract. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the court considered whether the parol evidence offered was credible to demonstrate the intentions of the parties, merely the finding by the district court that the language of the 2003 Agreement was clear and unambiguous. Moreover, an interpretation of the 2003 Agreement to mean that DEG contractually agreed that it would never infringe any patent that ever issued to May, anywhere, and until the end of time, is plainly unreasonable. Likewise, a similar interpretation of the 2003 Agreement to mean that DEG agreed never to contest the validity of any patent that ever issued to May is similarly absurd and not a provision to which DEG would have reasonably agreed. Rather, we interpret the contract to mean that DEG agreed not to challenge 2009-1367 20 May’s ’583 patent and its lineage or any of May’s patents that were extant at the time of the 2003 Agreement’s execution. We therefore hold that patents granted to May subsequent to the 2003 Agreement and not in the lineage of the ’583 patent, including the ’866 patent which issued in April 2005, were not within the contemplation of the contract. Consequently, we reverse the district court’s summary judgment of breach of contract.