Opinion ID: 808959
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ProTool Bag

Text: The district court construed the terms “between,” “joined between,” and “connecting between,” and granted summary judgment of noninfringement. The court construed “between” to mean “[i]n the interval defined by two end points; here, the outer edge of the end panels of the case.” Infringement op., at  (quoting Claim Construction op., at ). The court construed “joined between” to mean 6 Tellingly, in its motion to stay proceedings pending appeal of the district court’s preliminary injunction decision, Travel Caddy argued that the district court’s claim construction constituted law of the case: In as much as the issues on appeal are directed to the Markman definitions adopted by the Court and their application to the accused products, a stay is appropriate. These definitions constitute the law of the case, are ripe for appeal as a matter of right and the outcome will directly affect any future trial. Outside the Box Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, No. 1:05cv-2482 (N.D. Ga. April 5, 2007), ECF No. 399 at 3; J.A. 4674. 7 The dissent mischaracterizes our discussion of the law of the case, suggesting that we have somehow created a broad rule that claim construction at the preliminary injunction stage is always the law of the case. We have done no such thing. Because the dissent’s concerns are premised on inaccurate representations, we need not address them. 31 OUTSIDE THE BOX v. TRAVEL CADDY “[f]astened in and through the interval defined by two end points; here, the outer edge of the end panels of the case.” Id. The court construed “connecting between” to mean “[l]inking or bridging the interval defined by two end points; here, the outer edge of the end panels of the case.” Id. The district court held that this means that all of the asserted claims of the ’992 and ’104 patents require that the bottom and front and back panels do not extend beyond the end panels, and found that “[t]he bottom panel, as well as the front and back panels, of the ProTool Bag, all extend beyond the edges of the end panels.” Infringement op., at . On appeal, Travel Caddy argues that the district court’s construction of “between,” “joined between,” and “connecting between” is erroneous, and that these terms, correctly construed, encompass the structure of the ProTool Bag. Specifically, Travel Caddy argues that: (1) “between” actually means “between and extending beyond”; and (2) Figure 10 of the ’104 patent embodies a bag where the bottom panel extends beyond the end panel. 8 8 Travel Caddy argues that Union Rich’s technical expert, Dr. Radhakrishnaiah Parachuru, admitted that Figure 10 shows a bag with a bottom panel extending beyond the end panels and labeled the diagram with the words “extension of bottom panel.” Parachuru Dep. 235:10-236:15 (June 6, 2006), J.A. 2194-2195. In response, Union Rich argues that “Dr. Parachuru’s mark-up of Fig. 10 is consistent with this Court’s explanation of Fig. 4 as an explanation that the binding wraps around a terminal portion of the front panel that is coterminous with the terminal portion of the fabriccovered bottom panel.” Union Rich Br. 52. Regardless of whose theory they support, Dr. Parachuru’s deposition testimony and handwritten notation are insufficient to overcome the language in the specification which, as explained below, identifies the area in question as the binding. OUTSIDE THE BOX v. TRAVEL CADDY 32 The prior panel addressed these same issues and found that, although “Travel Caddy is correct that the preposition ‘between’ could be used to describe something that extends beyond the bounds of the objects of the preposition . . . the written description and drawings of the ’104 patent do not support such a broad interpretation of the term ‘between’ in the claims.” Outside the Box, 260 F. App’x at 319. We agree. A careful review of the relevant patent figures and the corresponding written description reveals that the portion of Figure 10 that seems to protrude beyond the end panel is not part of the bottom panel but instead is the binding connecting the fabric panels, as shown in Figure 4. The written description for the embodiment in Figure 10 provides that “[a]ll of the described panels are fabric covered, preferably by two layers of fabric which are sewn together and retained along their edges by a binding 210.” ’104 Patent, col.6, ll.11-14. The written description further indicates that the binding used “is substantially similar to 33 OUTSIDE THE BOX v. TRAVEL CADDY or the same as previously described with respect to the other embodiments of the invention.” Id. at col.6, ll.39-43. Figure 4 of the ’104 patent is the only figure depicting the binding used in the claimed invention. The specification states that “[a]n important aspect of the invention is the utilization of a single closed loop binding 40 in FIG. 4 which serves to join all of the flexible fabric component panels or parts 20, 22, 28 of the carrying case.” ’104 patent, col.3, ll.36-39 (emphasis added). As Union Rich correctly notes, the specification does not disclose any other way to join the panels. Because Figure 4 is the only representation of binding of the panels, and the written description states that the binding used for the embodiment in Figure 10 is “substantially similar to or the same” as that previously described, it follows that the binding in Figure 10 is the same as that described in Figure 4. In other words, the portion of Figure 10 that appears to stick out from the end panel – which Travel Caddy points to as evidence that the bottom panel extends beyond the end panel – is actually the binding of the panels. Given the language in the specification, we agree with the district court’s construction of “between” to exclude embodiments where the bottom, front, or back panels extend beyond the edges of the end panels. We decline the dissent’s invitation to substitute its own claim construction for that of the district court and a prior panel of this court and to engage in appellate fact-finding. Because we find that the district court’s claim construction was correct, we affirm its decision granting summary judgment of noninfringement with respect to the ProTool bag. OUTSIDE THE BOX v. TRAVEL CADDY 34