Opinion ID: 751535
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A spring clip comprising:

Text: 64 two elongate, relatively stiff members; 65 a relatively flexible web forming a hinge joining the two members intermediate their ends; 66 opposed jaw portion on respective members at one side of the hinge; and 67 a spring finger on one member at the other side of the hinge resiliently biased into engagement against the other member so as yieldingly to hold the jaws closed, the spring finger forming an open loop disengageable from the other member for insertion through an aperture in an article, whereby the finger serves both as a spring to close the jaws and a holder for the article. 68 To analyze whether the Curtis clip infringes the '863 patent, the court must follow a two step process: First, the claim must be properly construed to determine its scope and meaning. Second, the claim as properly construed must be compared to the accused device or process. Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Sys., 15 F.3d 1573, 1576, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1839 (Fed.Cir.1993). Neither party disputes that the district court's construction of the claims of the '863 patent was correct. Curtis, however, asserts that as a matter of law, none of the claims of the '863 patent read on the Curtis clip. Therefore, Curtis asserts that as a matter of law under the district court's claim construction, the Curtis clip does not infringe the '863 patent. Plasti-clip and Faneuf assert that the Curtis clip literally infringes the '863 patent, and also infringes under a doctrine of equivalents analysis. 69 Under the doctrine of equivalents, a product or process that does not literally infringe upon the express terms of a patent claim may nonetheless be found to infringe if there is 'equivalence' between the elements of the accused product or process and the claimed elements of the patented invention. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 117 S.Ct. 1040, 1045, 41 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (1997). The application of the doctrine of equivalents is an objective inquiry on an element-by-element basis. Id. at 1054, 41 USPQ2d at 1876. 70 The district court instructed the jury as to its construction of claim 1 of the '863 patent as follows: 71 The limitation of a disengageable open loop ... requires that there be a portion of the spring finger which is separate and identifiable as a loop extended outside a plane defined by the jaw member so that an article can be held by the loop in such a manner as to swing free of the jaws and other elements of the clip and can hang in various orientations so that the loop formed by the spring finger permits an identification card quote, to be flat on the wearer's clothing where it will not continuously interfere with arm movement, close quote, and that the loop permits the identification card to, quote, hang parallel to, the hinged members and flat on the wearer's clothing. You should consider whether the accused device manufactured and sold by Curtis permits an identification card to lie flat against normal light clothing, such as a shirt, blouse, or suit jacket, and whether the card hangs in such a manner that it can be easily read by a guard to ensure that the wearer is authorized to enter a location. 72 The limitation that the loop formed by the spring finger, serves as a spring to close the jaws, was added to the claim as part of an amendment Mr. Faneuf made to avoid prior art, and that limitation means that the spring finger must operate to ensure that the jaws are closed so firmly that an identification badge may be firmly attached to the hem of one's normal clothing, such as the pocket hem of a shirt, blouse, or lightweight suit jacket and the badge hangs flat on one's clothing. The jaws must be closed in normal operation, not by inserting an arm or other device between the jaws. 73 Similarly, the requirement of the claim that the spring finger on one member at the other side of the hinge resiliently biased into engagement against the other member so as yieldingly to hold the jaws closed, means that the spring finger must operate to ensure the jaws are closed so firmly that an identification badge may be firmly attached to the hem of one's normal clothing. 74 Curtis and Judd assert that, as a matter of law, under the district court's instructions the Curtis clip lacks any substantial equivalent of three limitations of claim 1 of the '863 patent: (1) jaws that close; (2) dual functionality of the spring finger, i.e., a spring finger that holds the jaws closed and holds an apertured article; and (3) a disengageable open loop. The accused Curtis clip has jaws, Curtis asserts, that do not close completely. A space is left between the jaws to accommodate the extending arm of the document holder and would not close so firmly, Curtis asserts, that an identification badge may be firmly attached to the hem of one's clothing. Also, because the spring finger of the accused Curtis clip is not designed and in normal operation does not disengage from the opposing jaw without considerable effort and risk of breakage and cannot hold an apertured article flat against a person's clothing because of a reinforcing element in the underside of the spring finger, it fails to meet the remaining two elements of claim 1 of the '863 patent at issue, namely, a spring finger that holds the jaws closed and holds an apertured article by forming a disengageable open loop. 75 Plasti-Clip and Faneuf counter these arguments by asserting that the requirement in claim 1 of the '863 patent that the jaws be yieldingly held closed does not require that the tips of the jaws touch. Expert testimony that the claim term simply means that the jaws must be in a closed position, for instance, to hold a single sheet of paper, in order to operate as a clip provides substantial evidence, Plasti-Clip and Faneuf assert, supports the jury's determination that the accused Curtis clip has jaws that are held yieldingly closed by the spring finger. 76 On the second disputed limitation, Plasti-Clip and Faneuf assert that the dual function of the invention of claim 1 of the '836 patent requiring the spring finger to serve as both a spring to close the jaws and to hold an apertured article is not an additional limitation of the claims because this whereby clause merely states the result of structural limitations in the claim and adds no limitation. Even if it is an additional limitation, Plasti-Clip and Faneuf argue, the Curtis clip meets the limitation because its spring finger meets the dual function as attested to by Curtis's own expert, Mr. Powell, who inserted the Curtis clip's spring finger into an aperture in an identification card. Lastly, Plasti-Clip and Faneuf assert that the Curtis clip does have a disengageable open loop because the spring finger can be opened past the flange on the opposing jaw to insert the spring finger through an apertured article as Mr. Powell showed. 77 In reviewing the arguments of the parties and the testimony presented to the jury, we hold that the Curtis clip does not infringe the '863 patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. We need only address the lack of one of the limitations asserted by Curtis to find non-infringement. We find that there is no substantial evidence to support the jury's conclusion that the Curtis clip has a disengageable open loop. 5 78 Every witness who testified or showed that the Curtis clip had a disengageable open loop had to force the Curtis clip to do something that it was not designed or intended to do. Mr. Crowley, the prosecuting patent attorney of the '078 patent, was questioned concerning an opinion letter that he wrote for Curtis stating that the Curtis clip was not covered by the claims of the '863 patent. In that letter, Mr. Crowley stated that the Curtis clip was not within the claims of the '863 patent because it did not have a disengageable open loop as required by claim 1. In response to questioning by Plasti-Clip and Faneuf's attorney, however, Mr. Crowley opened the spring finger of the Curtis clip to hold an apertured article only by applying considerable force. The colloquy at trial was as follows: 79 Q: So what you were saying was that the finger on [Curtis' clip] was not an open loop; is that right? 80 A: That's correct. 81 Q: And would you agree with me, sir, that it is possible to describe it as an open loop? ... 82 A: Only if you ignore the purposes of the patent. I notice that when you handed me the clip, that you had forced open and placed the resilient finger above. My recollection of the prototype I received was that you could not do that. You could not force it open like that.... 83 Q: Okay. So you are saying that the prototype you received, you couldn't disengage the spring finger arm from the opposite member? 84 A: It was very difficult, just like it's very difficult to do so in connection with this defendants' exhibit. 85 Q: Well, can you do it, sir? Can you disengage it? 86 A: I will try. I don't want to break it. Yeah, you can push it. If you pull it way up, you can disengage it, except the top of the finger forms--doesn't form an open loop, an openness, because it's resting on top of the--you can see it's resting right on top of the other flange, unless you pull it up more. 87 Q: You can pull it up a little? 88 A: Yeah. Then you have to spring bias and pull it up again. That's not the function of that clip. 89 Mr. Powell, Curtis's expert, also testified that the spring finger of the Curtis clip could be disengaged only with considerable difficulty. Mr. Schwartz, another expert, testified while referring to the Curtis clip, [a]nd where it says disengageable from the other member, disengageable, well, you got to fight this thing to disengage it, and when you got to fight it, this is not something that's readily disengageable and lends itself to the function which it was intended. 90 Even Mr. Grover, Faneuf's prosecuting patent attorney for the '863 patent, testified during his deposition that the Curtis clip did not infringe the '863 patent because although it has a spring finger at one end, the spring finger is not designed to form a loop to hold a card, and it would be very difficult to--because of an opposing flange, you might call it, opposite the spring finger, which would interfere with the insertion of the spring finger into the card. Finally, Plasti-Clip and Faneuf's expert, Mr. Cohen, testified that the Curtis clip infringed under the doctrine of equivalents by comparing the alleged infringing clip, not to the claims of the '863 patent, but to Faneuf's garment clip. Accused devices must infringe a patent claim, not a commercial embodiment allegedly made pursuant to that patent. 91 Because the Curtis clip was not intended to, and indeed does not, have a readily disengageable open loop to accommodate an apertured article or its substantial equivalent, it does not infringe the '863 patent as a matter of law, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.