Opinion ID: 2792853
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ’095 and ’131 patents

Text: The district court granted summary judgment that Fivetech did not infringe claims 1–15 of the ’095 patent or claims 1–15 of the ’131 patent. It concluded there was no literal infringement based on its construction of the claim term “attached.” It concluded that there was no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents because the all elements test was not met and the accused product “uses a washer, which is entirely absent from the Southco patents.” Southco, Inc. v. Fivetech Tech. Inc., No. 10-1060, 2012 WL 246253, at –6 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 25, 2012) (’095 and ’131 Order). Figure 3 of the ’095 and ’131 patents shows a captive screw having a screw head (24), threaded shaft (22), 4 SOUTHCO, INC. v. FIVETECH TECHNOLOGY INC. hollow knob (30) and hollow ferrule (50). ’095 patent col. 3 ll. 3–8. Figure 2 shows the same captive screw when the knob (30) is in the extended position and the threaded shaft (22) is retracted. Id. col. 2 ll. 21–24. In this position, the first annular flange (35) on the knob (30) and the second annular flange (56) on the ferrule (50) are in contact. Id. col. 5 ll. 32–34. SOUTHCO, INC. v. FIVETECH TECHNOLOGY INC. 5 The parties agree that claim 1 of the ’095 patent is representative of the asserted claims of the ’095 and ’131 patents. Claim 1 recites: 6 SOUTHCO, INC. v. FIVETECH TECHNOLOGY INC.
taching the panel to a surface, the surface hav- ing a threaded hole, the captive screw comprising: a) a screw having a head portion and a threaded shaft, ... c) a thin-walled, cylindrical, hollow knob comprising a first end having an annular top surface, a second end, and an inner surface; ... e) a hollow ferrule having a first end and a second end through which the threaded shaft slides, . . . and a threaded shaft captivation means, said threaded shaft captivation means adjacent the second end, wherein the second end of the ferrule is slidably and rotatably at- tached to the knob such that when the threaded shaft is in a retracted position, the threaded shaft captivation means prevents the ferrule and the knob from separating and when the thread- ed shaft is in an extended position, the flat, an- nular bottom surface of the head portion of the screw is in contact with the second end of the ferrule. ’095 patent col. 6 ll. 2–32 (emphasis added).
The district court concluded that the asserted claims of the ’095 and ’131 patents, which recite that the knob and ferrule are slidably and rotatably “attached,” require that the knob be directly connected to the ferrule. The district court did not rely on extrinsic evidence in construing the claims. ’095 and ’131 Order, 2012 WL 246253, at  n.7. SOUTHCO, INC. v. FIVETECH TECHNOLOGY INC. 7 We agree with the district court’s construction. Southco is correct that the ordinary meaning of “attached” includes both direct and indirect attachment. However, the claim requires more—namely that the ferrule and knob are attached “such that when the threaded shaft is in a retracted position, the threaded shaft captivation means prevents the ferrule and the knob from separating.” ’095 patent col. 6 ll. 25–29. An indirect attachment would not satisfy the limitation that the “the threaded shaft captivation means prevents the ferrule and the knob from separating” because if the ferrule and knob are already separated—i.e., not directly attached—the threaded shaft captivation means cannot prevent them from separating. Nothing in the specification compels a construction of “attached” that includes indirect attachment. None of the embodiments nor any discussion states that indirectly attached parts are “attached.” Southco argues that two passages in the specification support its position. We do not agree. First, Southco argues that “attached” includes indirect attachment because the patent discloses that “[t]he screw is attachable to the first panel.” Id. col. 1 ll. 36–37. This passage does not support Southco because the captive screw is directly attached to the first panel. See id. col. 1 ll. 38–44 (“The captive screw has . . . a ferrule that attaches to the upper panel.”). Second, Southco argues that “attached” includes indirect attachment because the patent discloses that the screw “is used for attaching the first panel to a lower surface . . . having a threaded hole.” Id. col. 1 ll. 37–38. This passage does not support Southco because the first panel and lower surface touch. See id. Fig. 3. Accordingly, the specification’s use of “attached” is consistent with its ordinary meaning as used in the claim: direct attachment. Although claim 1 of the ’131 patent uses “engaged” instead of “attached,” both parties agree that the terms should be construed similarly. We agree no separate 8 SOUTHCO, INC. v. FIVETECH TECHNOLOGY INC. analysis is necessary. As used in the asserted claims of the ’095 and ’131 patents, “attached” means direct attachment and “engaged” means direct engagement.
The district court concluded that Fivetech does not literally infringe under its construction because the knob and ferrule in Fivetech’s products are not directly connected. ’095 and ’131 Order, 2012 WL 246253, at –5. Southco does not challenge the district court’s conclusion of no literal infringement under the district court’s construction. The court concluded that Fivetech does not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents because the attachment between the knob and ferrule required by the claims is absent in the products, and the all elements rule was not satisfied. Id. at –6. Southco’s doctrine of equivalents argument is similar to its claim construction argument: direct attachment includes indirect attachment. No reasonable jury could find equivalence here because doing so would require determining that parts not directly attached are equivalent to parts that are directly attached—the very thing that the construction excludes. See Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc., 755 F.3d 1326, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Because the claim language differentiates between direct attachment and indirect attachment, we agree with the district court that Fivetech’s captive screws are not equivalent to the claimed invention. We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement as to the ’095 and ’131 patents.