Opinion ID: 4160657
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claim Construction of Claim 2

Text: IntegraSpec also argues that Claim 2 must be con- strued in this case because it was not at issue in Reward Wall. According to IntegraSpec, the district court in Reward Wall only construed Claims 1 and 19, and its construction of the term “adjacent” in Claim 1 created an irreconcilable conflict with Claim 2. Airlite responds that IntegraSpec asserted infringement of Claim 2—not Claim 1—against the Nudura ICFs in Reward Wall. Airlite also argues that the disputed claim terms in this case—“adjacent” and “substantially the same dimension”—were at issue in Reward Wall, and the court considered and rejected IntegraSpec’s claim construction arguments in that case. We agree with Airlite. In Reward Wall, the parties jointly requested early claim construction of certain claim terms found in both Claim 1 and Claim 19 of the ’933 Patent. Decision on Appeal, 2016 WL 5107131, at . Because the parties selected the claims and the claim terms to be construed, IntegraSpec’s suggestion that the district court overlooked and failed to construe other claims is without merit. As the district court explained, the patent claims at issue here contain the same “adjacent” and “dimension” terms that the court construed in Reward Wall. Id. at . Although Reward Wall involved Claims 1 and 19, IntegraSpec conceded to the district court in this case that Claim 2 contains all of the same 24 PHIL-INSUL CORP. v. AIRLITE PLASTICS CO. limitations of Claim 1, which was cancelled during reexamination. Id. The court found that those claim terms were dispositive of the issue of noninfringement in Reward Wall. At oral argument, counsel for IntegraSpec argued that, although the same terms appear in Claims 1 and 2, those terms can be construed differently between the two claims. Oral Argument at 10:52-11:00, available at http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=20 16-1982.mp3 (“So you are saying that the exact same language could be construed differently? In the context of a different claim, yes.”). It is well-established, however, that claim terms are to be construed consistently throughout a patent. Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Furthermore, a claim term should be construed consistently with its appearance in other places in the same claim or in other claims of the same patent.”). In any event, the district court considered and rejected IntegraSpec’s claim construction arguments in Reward Wall, and we affirmed the court’s constructions on appeal. We decline IntegraSpec’s request to reconstrue those terms now. IntegraSpec’s arguments were either made or could have been made in Reward Wall, and they cannot preclude the application of estoppel in this case.