Opinion ID: 221848
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: “Means for Coupling”

Text: Because we agree with the district court’s construction of the “means for monitoring the credit,” we affirm the portion of the Consent Judgment finding that Claim 9 is not infringed. Where, as here, the defendants raised invalidity only as an affirmative defense, and not in the form of a counterclaim, 9 it is ordinarily not necessary for 9 In the Consent Judgment, the parties agreed that Defendants “Telco Group, Inc., STI Phonecard, Inc., STI 27 AEROTEL LTD v. TELCO GROUP this court to address validity once it has found noninfringement. See Solomon Techs., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm., 524 F.3d 1310, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that, where invalidity is asserted as a counterclaim, “the question of validity does not become moot when there has been a determination of noninfringement” but where invalidity is raised as an affirmative defense “it is not necessary for the reviewing court to address the validity issue”) (citations omitted); see also Hill-Rom Co., Inc. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 209 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (finding no need “to vacate the district court’s validity ruling or address that ruling on the merits” where the invalidity issue was raised only as an affirmative defense and the court’s judgment did not include any reference to the issue of validity). Because the parties entered into a Consent Judgment that specifically finds Claim 9 invalid for indefiniteness – a conclusion which this court finds is not well-taken – we vacate that portion of the Consent Judgment and explain our reasons for doing so. The district court’s construction of the “means for coupling” was the sole basis for the parties’ stipulation that Claim 9 is invalid as indefinite. With respect to the “means for coupling,” the district court concluded that: (1) the function is “connecting a telephone to a special exchange;” and (2) the ‘275 Patent does not recite a corresponding structure for that function. Although the parties agree with the district court’s conclusion as to the function of the “means for coupling,” they disagree as to the corresponding structure. Accordingly, the issue before the court is whether the specification includes disclosure of a structure sufficient to perform the recited function. Prepaid Distributors & Co., Ntera Holdings, Inc., Radiant Telecom, Inc., and Samer Tawfik filed Answers to the Second Amended Complaint without counterclaims.” A2. AEROTEL LTD v. TELCO GROUP 28 Aerotel argues that, at the Markman hearing, the parties “stipulated that the structure corresponding to the coupling function was the regular telephone system.” Appellant’s Br. at 35. According to Aerotel, since neither party disputed that the patent disclosed a corresponding structure, the court should not have reached a contrary conclusion. Although Telco concedes that the parties “reached an agreement as to the structure for the ‘means for coupling’ on the last day of the Markman hearing,” it notes that the “issue was alive and in dispute at all times before that, including during the Markman briefing period.” Appellees’ Br. at 48 n.15. And, according to Telco, even where parties stipulate as to the structure of a means-plusfunction claim term, if the district court finds that the structure is not disclosed, it is not bound by that stipulation. The evidence in the record regarding the parties’ stipulation is somewhat unclear. Although counsel for Aerotel informed the district court that the parties had reached an agreement, there is no written stipulation in the record, and it appears that there may have been some confusion about the precise nature of the stipulation. 10 10 In the Claim Construction Order, the court characterizes the stipulation as an agreement between the parties that the “‘calling party station’ of claim 9 means ‘any available telephone.’” Claim Construction Order, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47266 at -72. Based on this agreement, the court found that “a means for coupling the calling party station to a special exchange is simply a means of connecting a telephone to a special exchange.” Id. at . The court found, however, that the patent is silent with respect to the corresponding structure that performs the coupling function. In other words, it seems that the district court interpreted the parties’ verbal stipulation as an agreement regarding what was being 29 AEROTEL LTD v. TELCO GROUP Setting aside the issue of whether the parties stipulated to the corresponding structure for the “means for coupling,” Aerotel argues that a person of ordinary skill in telecommunications readily would identify the “regular telephone system” as the structure performing the coupling function. 11 Based on our reading of the specification, we agree. It is well-established that the “specification must be read as a whole to determine the structure capable of performing the claimed function.” Budde v. HarleyDavidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2001). A structure disclosed in the specification is a “corresponding structure” “only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta, 344 F.3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting B. Braun Med. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Whether the specification “adequately sets forth structure corresponding to the claimed function necessitates consideration of that disclosure from coupled to the special exchange, not an agreement as to the structure performing the coupling function. 11 During oral argument, the parties indicated that, during the proceedings before the district court, there was no stipulation as to the relevant level of skill in the art. That said, neither party identified a dispute as to the level of skill, and, with respect to Claim 1, the district court made specific findings as to the understanding of a person skilled in the art. See Claim Construction Order, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47266 at  (“A person skilled in the art would know that a telephony system uses a number of other codes, including country codes, area codes, billing codes and so forth.”); see also id. at -40 (“[T]he Court believes that a person of skill in the art would understand that the special exchange must be located behind a regular telephone exchange for it to have its intended functionality.”). AEROTEL LTD v. TELCO GROUP 30 the viewpoint of one skilled in the art.” Budde, 250 F.3d at 1376. If the patent fails to disclose a corresponding structure, the claim is indefinite in scope and thus invalid. Id. Accordingly, when the district court concluded that there is no structure corresponding to the “means for coupling,” it necessarily rendered Claim 9 invalid. It is axiomatic that patents are presumed valid and that “overcoming the presumption of validity requires that any facts supporting a holding of invalidity must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.” Id. at 1376. Consequently, “a challenge to a claim containing a meansplus-function limitation as lacking structural support requires a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the specification lacks disclosure of structure sufficient to be understood by one skilled in the art as being adequate to perform the recited function.” Id. at 1376-77. On appeal, Aerotel argues that the district court erred when it found that the ‘275 Patent does not disclose a structure corresponding to the function of connecting a telephone to the special exchange. In support of this argument, Aerotel relies primarily on Figure 3 of the ‘275 Patent: 31 AEROTEL LTD v. TELCO GROUP The corresponding portion of the written description provides, in part, that: In FIG. 3 the basic operation of the prepaid tele- phone call system is shown in block diagram form. The calling phone is indicated at 81. The tele- phone 81 is connected to a regular telephone sys- tem indicated at 82. The calling party dials the special charge number and by a code number veri- fier 83. The code number verifier looks into a sec- tion of the memory as indicated by the code to verify that the code is valid. ‘275 Patent col. 5 ll. 29-36 (emphasis added). As Aerotel correctly points out, Figure 3 shows that the calling telephone (81) is connected to the special exchange (83-86 and 91) through the “regular telephone system” (82). Aerotel submits that, based on this language, a person of ordinary skill in telecommunications would know that the “regular telephone system” performs the coupling function. In response, Telco argues that, because no structure is disclosed in the specification, the district court “was not permitted by law to consider what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the structure to be.” Appellees’ Br. at 20. According to Telco, although the patent makes reference to a “regular telephone system,” there is “no disclosure linking or associating such a system to the function of coupling a calling party station to the specification.” Id. at 50. Looking to Figure 3, Telco contends that the telephone (81) is separated by a dashed line which “indicates discontinuity rather than connectivity” and thus no structure for connecting is disclosed in the specification. We do not find this argument persuasive, particularly in light of the specification’s explanation AEROTEL LTD v. TELCO GROUP 32 that the “telephone 81 is connected to a regular telephone system indicated at 82.” 12 We find that, based on Figure 3 and the corresponding description in the specification, a person of ordinary skill in this field would know that the “regular telephone system” performs the coupling function. At a minimum, Telco did not meet its burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to identify the disclosed structure, which is, standing alone, sufficient to warrant reversal of the district court’s construction. See Budde, 250 F.3d at 1376-77. Accordingly, we find that the district court erred in concluding that the ‘275 Patent does not disclose a structure corresponding to the “means for coupling.” As such, the district court’s conclusion, which rendered Claim 9 invalid as indefinite, is reversed.