Opinion ID: 212072
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: J.’s YA3000A

Text: As with figure 7, the YA3000A operates by having the user first place the wrench disc over the inner tie rod socket and then encase the inner tie rod with the hollow body of the tool. Unlike figure 7, the wrench disc and the hollow body of the YA3000A are securely engaged to one another by having the tabs of the wrench disc pass through the longitudinal sections into the circumferential sections and then rotating the tool.2 On June 19, 2003, after ordering the parties to submit their proposed construction of the claims at issue, the district court issued an opinion construing claim 1 of the ’776 patent.3 Lisle Corp. v. A.J. Mfg. Co., No. 02 C 7024 (N.D. Ill. June 19, 2 As explained above, the tool shown in figure 7 of the ’776 patent engages the wrench disc to the hollow body of the tool by rotating the retainer ring. 3 Claim 1, the only independent claim asserted by Lisle, reads as follows: A tool for removal of inner tie rods comprising in combination: 04-1275, -1346 -4- 2003). In that opinion, the court construed the claim limitation “retainer” to mean “any of various devices used for holding something.” Id., slip op. at 8. On October 31, 2003, prompted by A.J.’s motion for reconsideration and the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment of infringement and noninfringement, the district court issued an opinion modifying its earlier construction of the claim limitation “said retainer being detachably cooperative with the tabs to rotate the disk and a tie rod engaged therewith.” The court had difficulty with the apparent inconsistency caused by the juxtaposition of the words “detachably” and “cooperative,” but ultimately construed that limitation to mean that “[r]otation of the retainer can result in separation or disengagement or it can result in rotation of the disc and a tie rod that is interlocked with the disc.” Summary Judgment, slip op. at 23. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of Lisle that the YA3000A infringed the ’776 patent. Finally, the court denied A.J.’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity for indefiniteness or “impossibility.” Subsequently, a jury trial was held on the single issue of whether the ’776 patent was invalid on the ground of public use under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). On February 12, 2004, the jury found the ’776 patent was not shown to be invalid on the ground of public (a) a nut engaging, C-shaped wrench disc having spaced arms for engaging a nut, and outwardly projecting tabs for cooperation with a retainer; and (b) a hollow tube for placement over a tie rod, said tube having a retainer at one end and at least two slots for cooperatively engaging the tabs of the wrench disc and means for cooperation with tube rotation means at the opposite end, said retainer being detachably cooperative with the tabs to rotate the disk and a tie rod engaged therewith. 04-1275, -1346 -5- use. The district court denied A.J.’s motion for JMOL of invalidity of the ’776 patent after the jury rendered its verdict. A.J. timely appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).