Court Opinion

ID: 9964241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 15:01:09.916281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:14.672589
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1201   Document: 47     Page: 1   Filed: 04/29/2024

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                   FULLVIEW, INC.,
                    Plaintiff-Appellee

                            v.

                   POLYCOM, INC.,
                  Defendant-Appellant
                 ______________________

                       2023-1201
                 ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Northern District of California in No. 3:18-cv-00510-EMC,
 Judge Edward M. Chen.
                  ______________________

                 Decided: April 29, 2024
                 ______________________

    BRUCE JOSHUA WECKER, Hausfeld LLP, San Francisco,
 CA, argued for plaintiff-appellee.

     KELLY CATHERINE HUNSAKER, Winston & Strawn LLP,
 Redwood City, CA, argued for defendant-appellant. Also
 represented by DAVID DALKE, Los Angeles, CA; SAMANTHA
 MAXFIELD LERNER, Chicago, IL; EIMERIC REIG-PLESSIS,
 San Francisco, CA.
                 ______________________
Case: 23-1201     Document: 47     Page: 2    Filed: 04/29/2024

 2                             FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.

     Before DYK, CLEVENGER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
     Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge CHEN.
 Opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part filed by
                   Circuit Judge DYK.
 CHEN, Circuit Judge.
      FullView, Inc. (FullView) filed suit against Polycom,
 Inc. (Polycom) in the United States District Court for the
 Northern District of California, alleging Polycom infringed
 U.S. Patent No. 6,128,143 (’143 patent). The district court
 granted FullView’s motions for summary judgment of non-
 obviousness and infringement and denied Polycom’s cross-
 motions for summary judgment of obviousness and nonin-
 fringement. Polycom appeals both the grants and denials
 of these motions. As to validity, because Polycom’s obvi-
 ousness evidence raises genuine disputes of material fact,
 we reverse the grant of summary judgment of nonobvious-
 ness for FullView and affirm the denial of Polycom’s motion
 for summary judgment of obviousness. As to infringement,
 because the district court correctly construed the claims
 and because we are otherwise unpersuaded that Polycom
 has raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to literal
 infringement, we affirm both the grant of summary judg-
 ment of infringement for FullView and the denial of Poly-
 com’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement.
                        BACKGROUND
      The ’143 patent, owned by FullView, is titled “Pano-
 ramic Viewing System with Support Stand.” The invention
 relates to a panoramic viewing system including several
 cameras directed toward a pyramid-shaped mirror, which
 redirects the field of view of each camera to capture a pan-
 oramic view or a 360-view of an area around the viewing
 system. ’143 patent col. 1 ll. 26–27, col. 3 ll. 53–57, col. 4
 ll. 3–10. The viewing system permits a remote user to view
 the area. Id. col. 1 ll. 30–41. The cameras are precisely
 positioned relative to the pyramid-shaped mirror so that
Case: 23-1201    Document: 47      Page: 3    Filed: 04/29/2024

 FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.                            3

 the cameras have common or nearly common virtual opti-
 cal centers within the pyramid-shaped mirror. Id. col. 3
 l. 53 –col. 4 l. 37.
     Figure 17 (reproduced below) of the ’143 patent illus-
 trates an example of such a panoramic viewing system in
 which the cameras and the pyramid-shaped mirror are se-
 curely positioned. Id. col. 11 ll. 54–65. In this example, a
 reflective pyramid 800 and cameras 810 are secured to a
 hollow tube 804 (i.e., a support member). Id. col. 11 ll. 55–
 65. To mount the cameras 810 to the tube 804 in a secure
 manner, a strap or belt 812 presses the cameras 810
 against a spacer 814 between the cameras 810 and the
 tube 804. Id. col. 11 ll. 60–65. Video and power cables for
 the cameras 810 can be routed through the length of the
 tube 804 and out through a space at the bottom of the
 tube 804. Id. col. 11 l. 67 – col. 12 l. 3.

                       ’143 patent FIG. 17.
Case: 23-1201     Document: 47      Page: 4     Filed: 04/29/2024

 4                              FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.

     The issues in this appeal deal with independent
 claim 10, which recites:
     10. A panoramic viewing apparatus, comprising:
     plurality of image processing devices, each having
     an optical center and a field of view;
     a pyramid shaped element having a plurality of re-
     flective side facets facing in different directions,
     each of at least two of the plurality of reflective side
     facets redirecting a field of view of one of the plu-
     rality of image processing devices to create a plu-
     rality of virtual optical centers; and
     a support member intersecting an inner volume of
     the pyramid shaped element, the pyramid shaped
     element being secured to the support member and
     the plurality of image processing devices being se-
     cured to the support member.
 Id. at claim 10 (emphases added). The emphasized limita-
 tions “a support member intersecting an inner volume of
 the pyramid shaped element” and “the plurality of image
 processing devices being secured to the support member”
 concern the obviousness and infringement disputes on ap-
 peal, respectively.
      FullView’s operative complaint accused Polycom of
 selling a line of videoconferencing products (Accused Prod-
 ucts) that infringe independent claim 10 and dependent
 claims 11–12 of the ’143 patent. In response, Polycom al-
 leged that the claims were invalid as obvious. Over the
 course of litigation, the parties cross-moved for summary
 judgment as to both infringement and validity. On both
 issues, FullView prevailed, with the district court granting
 summary judgment of infringement and validity and deny-
 ing Polycom’s cross-motions. FullView, Inc. v. Polycom,
 Inc., 635 F. Supp. 3d 917, 920 (N.D. Cal. 2022) (Infringe-
 ment Order); FullView, Inc. v. Polycom, Inc., No. 18-cv-
Case: 23-1201    Document: 47      Page: 5    Filed: 04/29/2024

 FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.                            5

 00510, 2022 WL 836302, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2022)
 (Obviousness Order).
     Polycom appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
 § 1292(c)(2). Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 719
 F.3d 1305, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc).
                    STANDARD OF REVIEW
      We review the district court’s grants of summary judg-
 ment under the law of the regional circuit—here, the Ninth
 Circuit. Adasa Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 55 F.4th 900,
 907 (Fed. Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 2561 (2023).
 The Ninth Circuit “review[s] the district court’s grant of
 summary judgment de novo, determining whether, viewing
 all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
 party, there are any genuine issues of material fact and
 whether the district court correctly applied the relevant
 substantive law.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting
 Kraus v. Presidio Tr. Facilities Div./Residential Mgmt.
 Branch, 572 F.3d 1039, 1043–44 (9th Cir. 2009)).
                         DISCUSSION
                       I. Obviousness
     Obviousness is a legal question with underlying factual
 inquiries. Ivera Med. Corp. v. Hospira, Inc., 801 F.3d 1336,
 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Determining whether one of ordi-
 nary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
 the teachings of different references is a flexible inquiry,
 and the motivation is not required to be found in any par-
 ticular prior art reference.” Id. For example, a particular
 approach may be obvious to try if a design need, market
 pressure, or other motivation would suggest to a skilled ar-
 tisan to pursue that approach. Rolls-Royce, PLC v. United
 Techs. Corp., 603 F.3d 1325, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing
 KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007)). As
 the Supreme Court held in KSR, “[w]hen there is a design
 need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are
 a finite number of identified, predictable solutions,” these
Case: 23-1201    Document: 47      Page: 6    Filed: 04/29/2024

 6                            FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.

 solutions may be obvious to try. 550 U.S. at 421. And in
 analyzing obviousness, we may consider common sense
 when explained with sufficient reasoning. Arendi S.A.R.L.
 v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing
 Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324,
 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).
     On appeal, it is undisputed that the prior art reference
 Yamazawa 1998 1 discloses every limitation in claim 10 ex-
 cept for one: “a support member intersecting an inner vol-
 ume of the pyramid shaped element.” Appellant’s Br. 35–
 36; see Appellee’s Br. 65–66. Polycom contends there is no
 genuine dispute of material fact that this limitation would
 have been obvious to try in view of Yamazawa 1998, and,
 as a result, the district court should have granted summary
 judgment in favor of Polycom. Appellant’s Br. 43. In the
 alternative, Polycom argues that the record reveals at least
 two triable disputes of fact: (1) whether Yamazawa 1998’s
 Figure 1 suggests the possibility of a single contiguous sup-
 port member that satisfies the “intersecting” limitation,
 and (2) whether Polycom’s expert testimony as to the
 known benefits and simplicity of using a contiguous sup-
 port member would have motivated a skilled artisan to
 modify Figure 1 to arrive at the claimed “intersecting” lim-
 itation. Id. at 50–60. While the district court did not err
 in denying Polycom’s motion for summary judgment of ob-
 viousness, we find the district court erred in granting
 FullView’s motion for summary judgment of nonobvious-
 ness because material factual disputes as to whether the
 “intersecting” limitation would have been obvious to try or

     1   Takahito Kawanishi & Kuzamasa Yamazawa et
 al., Generation of High-resolution Stereo Panoramic Im-
 ages by Omnidirectional Imaging Sensor Using Hexagonal
 Pyramidal Mirrors, in PROCS.: FOURTEENTH INT’L CONF.
 ON PATTERN RECOGNITION (Anil K. Jain et al. eds., Aug. 16–
 20, 1998) (Yamazawa 1998).
Case: 23-1201    Document: 47      Page: 7    Filed: 04/29/2024

 FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.                            7

 obvious as a matter of common sense preclude summary
 judgment.
      First, Polycom raised a genuine dispute of material fact
 as to whether a skilled artisan would have found a contig-
 uous support member to be one of a finite number of iden-
 tified, predictable solutions to a design need or problem
 and hence obvious to try in Yamazawa 1997 2 and Yama-
 zawa 1998 (collectively referred to as the Yamazawa refer-
 ences). Relying primarily on the contents of Figure 1 in
 Yamazawa 1997 and Figure 1 in Yamazawa 1998 (repro-
 duced below), the district court found the Yamazawa refer-
 ences affirmatively teach the absence of the “intersecting”
 limitation. Obviousness Order, 2022 WL 836302, at *8–9.
 These figures differ from one another only in that the Eng-
 lish translation of Yamazawa 1997 captioned the left panel
 of Figure 1 as a “cross-sectional view,” while Yama-
 zawa 1998 captioned the left panel of Figure 1 as a “front
 view.”

     2   Kazumasa Yamazawa et al., High-Resolution Om-
 nidirectional Stereo Imaging Using Pyramidal Mirror,
 1997 GEN. CONF. INST. ELECS., INFO. & COMMC’N ENG’RS
 353 (Yamazawa 1997).
Case: 23-1201     Document: 47      Page: 8     Filed: 04/29/2024

 8                              FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.

        J.A. 2701 (yellow coloring added by Polycom).
     Though we agree with the district court that Yama-
 zawa 1998’s Figure 1 “clearly does not show” the “intersect-
 ing” limitation, we believe the district court erred in
 finding that the Yamazawa references “demonstrate the
 absence of the claimed intersection.” Id. at *9 (emphasis in
 original). The district court appears to have accepted as
 true that the left panel depicts a cross-sectional view and
 thereby reveals that an interior of the apparatus in the
 Yamazawa references lacks a contiguous support member
 extending through the pyramidal mirrors. See id. at *6, *9.
 The district court credited testimony from FullView’s ex-
 pert, Dr. Vishvjit S. Nalwa, that “if a ‘cross section’ does not
 show something, that something is necessarily absent.” Id.
 at *9 (quoting J.A. 3005). Polycom genuinely disputed this
 determination by countering with its own expert testimony
 that the correct caption for the left panel should be “side
 view” or “front view.” J.A. 2912. In any event, whether the
 structure is absent in the Yamazawa references or just not
 shown to be present does not control the obviousness anal-
 ysis. In either event, the question is whether it was obvious
 to provide a contiguous support structure in Yamazawa.
 We note that the mere absence of a claimed structure in a
 prior art reference is not a teaching away. A reasonable
Case: 23-1201     Document: 47      Page: 9    Filed: 04/29/2024

 FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.                              9

 juror could conclude that Yamazawa 1998’s disclosure
 leaves open the possibility that a configuration with such a
 contiguous support member—a configuration FullView
 does not dispute would result in the “intersecting” limita-
 tion, see Appellee’s Br. 45—could be one of a finite number
 of identified, predictable solutions to implement Yama-
 zawa’s apparatus.
      And Polycom indeed raises a genuine dispute of mate-
 rial fact as to whether a skilled artisan would have found
 using a contiguous support member in Yamazawa 1998 to
 be one of a finite number of predictable solutions to a de-
 sign need, even if Yamazawa 1998 itself does not expressly
 disclose a contiguous support member. As Polycom’s ex-
 pert, Mr. Kurtis Keller, described, Yamazawa 1998’s Fig-
 ure 1 shows two pyramidal mirrors secured to a vertical
 support member and six corresponding cameras secured to
 the support member above and below each mirror.
 J.A. 2902–03. Referring to Yamazawa 1998’s Figure 2 (re-
 produced below), Polycom’s expert explained that camera
 wires are routed from the top of the apparatus and through
 the bottom of the apparatus. Id. at 2902. He then named
 the benefits of a contiguous support structure (compared to
 using multiple smaller, individual support members), in-
 cluding: (1) “more structural rigidity to the overall device,”
 (2) “a conduit for the wires of the cameras to be routed from
 the top of the apparatus,” and (3) a “simplified” configura-
 tion. Id. at 2903–05. Polycom’s expert also indicated that
 “a two- or three-part central column/pole . . . might be an
 option for a device that needs greater portability . . . .” Id.
 at 2904. On the other hand, “[a] non-contiguous support
 member would not make sense from an engineering stand-
 point because camera cables would not be easily passed or
 fished through from the top to the bottom portion of the
 device.” Id. at 2903. FullView’s expert, in contrast, ex-
 plained that Yamazawa 1998 could be implementing a sup-
 port structure in which each pyramidal mirror has an
 independent support member fastened to the parts of the
Case: 23-1201    Document: 47     Page: 10    Filed: 04/29/2024

 10                           FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.

 support structure above and below the pyramidal mirror.
 J.A. 3021.

                      J.A. 1870 FIG. 2.
      The district court found that Polycom, by not identify-
 ing any known design need or problem, failed to show that
 the “intersecting” limitation was obvious to try. Obvious-
 ness Order, 2022 WL 836302, at *9–10. We disagree.
 Based on Polycom’s expert testimony, we conclude there is
 a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether a contigu-
 ous support member was a variant that would be obvious
 to try, given the need to provide an adequate support struc-
 ture for the apparatus. Both parties agree that Yama-
 zawa 1998 shows a support structure (i.e., the three
 vertically aligned yellow sections visible in Yama-
 zawa 1998’s Figure 1 above) for supporting the pyramidal
 mirrors and the cameras and disagree only as to whether
 it would be obvious for that support structure to form a con-
 tiguous support member, as opposed to existing as three
 separate, smaller pieces. Both parties likewise agree that
 the top and bottom of Yamazawa 1998’s support structure
 receive camera cables. J.A. 2901; J.A. 2964.
     In view of this specific configuration taught in Yama-
 zawa 1998 and Polycom’s expert testimony, a reasonable
 juror could conclude that a design need or problem existed
 for a support structure in Yamazawa 1998 that provides
 both (1) structural support for the cameras and mirrors
Case: 23-1201    Document: 47      Page: 11    Filed: 04/29/2024

 FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.                            11

 and (2) a conduit for the camera cables. Specifically, “[f]or
 a designer starting with [Yamazawa 1998], the question”
 could be how to provide a support structure, with the three
 vertically aligned sections visible in Figure 1 of Yama-
 zawa 1998, that achieves the goals of structurally support-
 ing the cameras and the mirrors and providing a conduit
 for the camera cables. KSR, 550 U.S. at 424. Even if
 Yamazawa 1998 may not expressly disclose a contiguous
 support structure, a reasonable juror could conclude, based
 on the record, a single contiguous structure and a multi-
 part central structure represent a finite number of identi-
 fied, predictable solutions for achieving these goals. A rea-
 sonable juror therefore could have found both a single
 contiguous structure and a multi-part support structure to
 be obvious variants in the context of the teachings of Yama-
 zawa 1998. Cf. Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., 957 F.3d
 1334, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (describing that when the prior
 art leaves a skilled artisan with two design choices, each of
 the two design choices is an obvious variant).
     Second, Polycom raised a genuine dispute of material
 fact as to whether common sense would have guided a
 skilled artisan to a contiguous support member in the con-
 text of Yamazawa 1998’s disclosed system. As Polycom’s
 expert reasoned, “a hollow, central core represents a com-
 monsense design” and “would have been within the back-
 ground knowledge, skill, and/or creativity” of a skilled
 artisan. J.A. 2905. Polycom’s expert furnished examples
 to support his reasoning. Id. at 2905–07. For example, the
 reference Horn 3 describes a camera mounted on the top of
 an extendable shaft made up of two sections where cables
 from the camera can be located within the shaft. Id. And
 a common torch lamp “uses a hollow support structure to
 route electrical wires from the light bulbs to the floor where
 they can be plugged into a wall outlet.” Id. at 2907.

     3   U.S. Patent No. 5,065,249.
Case: 23-1201    Document: 47      Page: 12    Filed: 04/29/2024

 12                            FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.

     By comparison, FullView’s expert asserted that “‘struc-
 tural rigidity’ clearly does not require the claimed intersec-
 tion or a ‘contiguous support member.’”            J.A. 3020.
 According to FullView’s expert, a contiguous support mem-
 ber has disadvantages such as: (1) being “expensive to
 manufacture,” (2) “making assembly and transportation of
 the device unwieldy,” and (3) “not allow[ing] adjustment of
 the distance between the upper and lower camera assem-
 blies.” Id.
      In granting summary judgment for FullView, the dis-
 trict court erred in failing to acknowledge Polycom’s expert
 testimony. Polycom offered evidentiary support for its con-
 clusion that a contiguous support member would be within
 the common sense of a skilled artisan as “the most mechan-
 ically simple construction.” Obviousness Order, 2022 WL
 836302, at *11 (cleaned up). Polycom’s expert testimony
 described—with detailed reasoning based in part on prior
 art teachings—the benefits of and the simplicity of using a
 contiguous support member. See J.A. 2905–07. A reason-
 able juror could conclude, particularly given that Yama-
 zawa 1998’s three support members are vertically aligned
 in Figure 1, that a contiguous support structure would
 have been within the knowledge of a skilled artisan as a
 straightforward and simple way of achieving the goals of
 mechanically supporting Yamazawa 1998’s cameras and
 pyramidal mirrors and providing a conduit for Yama-
 zawa 1998’s camera cables. Cf. Arendi, 832 F.3d at 1362
 (explaining that we have invoked common sense to supply
 a limitation missing from the prior art when “the limitation
 in question was unusually simple and the technology par-
 ticularly straightforward”).
     For these reasons, the evidence of record creates genu-
 ine disputes of material fact as to whether the “intersect-
 ing” limitation would have been obvious. The district court
 thus erred in granting summary judgment of nonobvious-
 ness but, for the reasons stated herein, correctly denied
 summary judgment of obviousness. We reverse the grant
Case: 23-1201    Document: 47      Page: 13   Filed: 04/29/2024

 FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.                          13

 of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings
 consistent with this opinion.
                      II. Infringement
     “Whether an accused device infringes requires a two-
 step analysis—the court first ‘determines the scope and
 meaning of the patent claims asserted, and then the
 properly construed claims are compared to the allegedly in-
 fringing device.’” Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu,
 LLC, 33 F.4th 1326, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting
 CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless Inc., 10 F.4th
 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). Here, we apply the traditional
 claim-construction framework even though the district
 court construed the limitation “the plurality of image pro-
 cessing devices being secured to the support member” on
 summary judgment. Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 830
 F.3d 1374, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The ultimate issue of
 claim construction is a legal question that we review de
 novo, with any subsidiary fact-findings on extrinsic evi-
 dence reviewed for clear error. Id. at 1381.
                              A.
     The Accused Products are panoramic camera systems
 for videoconference applications in which several cameras
 are directed towards a pyramidal mirror. 4 Infringement
 Order, 635 F. Supp. 3d at 922. For these panoramic camera
 systems to properly capture a panoramic image of a room,
 the camera systems must maintain a fixed relationship be-
 tween their cameras and the mirror. See J.A. 3942. The
 Accused Products accomplish this goal by ensuring that the

     4   Polycom does not dispute that the pyramidal mir-
 ror in the Accused Products satisfies the “pyramid shaped
 element being secured to the support member” limitation
 of claim 10.
Case: 23-1201    Document: 47     Page: 14    Filed: 04/29/2024

 14                           FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.

 cameras and the mirror are in a fixed relationship with a
 common support pole. See J.A. 4060.
     As for the cameras, they are stabilized in relation to a
 central, pole-like support member by way of a few interven-
 ing structures. Specifically, a set of five camera lenses
 epoxied to corresponding image sensors are soldered to one
 side of a circuit board. Infringement Order, 635 F. Supp.
 3d at 927. The other side of that circuit board is screwed
 onto a steel chassis. Id. In particular, the circuit board is
 designed with six screw holes to receive six corresponding
 screws that attach the circuit board to the steel chassis.
 See id.; J.A. 3947. Both the circuit board and the steel
 chassis are designed with a central hole to allow the sup-
 port member to be inserted through them, and a nut and
 washer are used to attach the support member to the steel
 chassis. Infringement Order, 635 F. Supp 3d at 922, 927.
 Through these intervening structures, the cameras are
 maintained in a fixed and stable position relative to the py-
 ramidal mirror, ensuring that the cameras do not uninten-
 tionally move out of position. As Polycom’s counsel
 acknowledged during the summary judgment hearing be-
 fore the district court, in the Accused Products, “you have
 a very firm, structurally sound configuration for accom-
 plishing [the] function” of securing the cameras compared
 to “using spacers and a belt [disclosed in the ’143 patent],
 where there’s a much greater chance of movement.”
 J.A. 4060.
     Polycom’s noninfringement defense comes down to just
 one element: whether the Accused Products satisfy the
 limitation “the plurality of image processing devices being
 secured to the support member.” According to Polycom, the
 “image processing devices” in its products—the combina-
 tion of the camera lenses and corresponding images sen-
 sors—are not “secured to the support member.”
 Appellant’s Br. 71. This is because, Polycom says, this lim-
 itation under a correct construction does not permit partic-
 ular kinds of intervening structures to attach the “plurality
Case: 23-1201    Document: 47      Page: 15   Filed: 04/29/2024

 FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.                           15

 of image sensors” to the “support member.” Id. at 73–74.
 In Polycom’s view, one such impermissible intervening se-
 curing structure is the circuit board in the Accused Prod-
 ucts, which serves to route image data and distribute
 power to electrical components. Id. In the alternative, Pol-
 ycom contends that there is a triable question of fact as to
 whether the Accused Products literally infringe this limi-
 tation. Id. at 82–83. Neither argument is persuasive.
                              B.
      We start with claim construction. The district court
 appears to have adopted FullView’s proposed construction,
 interpreting “the plurality of image processing devices be-
 ing secured to the support member” to mean “fix[ing] or at-
 tach[ing] the plurality of image processing devices firmly
 to the support member so that [the image processing de-
 vices] cannot be moved.” J.A. 3967; see Infringement Or-
 der, 635 F. Supp. 3d at 927–28. As the district court
 explained, the “plain meaning of the term ‘secured’ allows
 for two objects to be fastened or attached in some way, such
 as with bolts and welding, without direct contact between
 the two objects.” Infringement Order, 635 F. Supp. 3d at
 927. “The key to attachment or fastening,” the district
 court noted, “is that it does not allow movement.” Id. at
 928. The district court concluded that the term “secured”
 does not “prevent[] fastening via intermediate elements
 like a bracket.” Id.
     On appeal, Polycom does not dispute that the claims
 permit an intervening structure to attach the image pro-
 cessing devices to the support member. Nor, in Polycom’s
 view, does the claim require direct contact between the im-
 age processing devices and the support member. See Ap-
 pellant’s Reply Br. 5; Oral Arg. at 58:20–58:24 (available at
 https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=23
 -1201_02092024.mp3). Polycom further agrees that an in-
 tervening structure may perform an additional function
 other than attaching. Oral Arg. at 34:21–34:34. And before
Case: 23-1201    Document: 47     Page: 16    Filed: 04/29/2024

 16                           FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.

 the district court, Polycom agreed that the combination of
 the circuit board, the chassis, and the nut and washer in
 the Accused Products “maintain[s] a fixed relationship be-
 tween the [pyramidal mirror] and the image processing de-
 vices” and provides “a very firm, structurally sound
 configuration for accomplishing that [securing] function.”
 J.A. 4060.
     What is in dispute is Polycom’s theory that the claims
 require intervening structures to be analogous to the “bolts
 or welding” examples mentioned by the district court or to
 embody the fasteners described in the ’143 patent specifi-
 cation—such as straps, belts, and spacers. Appellant’s
 Br. 73, 75–76; see Infringement Order, 635 F. Supp. 3d at
 927. Polycom surmises that an intervening circuit board
 such as the one in the Accused Products does not satisfy
 this requirement, even though it contributes to the secur-
 ing function, because the circuit board also “functions to
 route electronic data and power.” Appellant’s Br. 75–76.
 Moreover, during the summary judgment hearing before
 the district court, Polycom’s attorney asserted that a
 bracket would meet the “secured to” limitation, but a plate
 or steel chassis would not, even if that plate or chassis un-
 questionably secured the image processing devices to the
 supporting member. J.A. 4066–68, 4071–72; see Oral Arg.
 at 31:58–32:53. In other words, Polycom’s understanding
 of the “secured to” limitation appears to require that any
 intervening structures (1) are bolts, welding, straps, belts,
 spacers, brackets, or any analogous structures (but not
 plates), and (2) do not provide certain additional functions,
 like, for example, a power- and data-routing function. We
 disagree.
     The crux of Polycom’s construction argument appears
 to be that the only intervening structures that can satisfy
 this limitation are ones that are traditionally understood
 to be securing devices, like, say, a bolt or a strap. Polycom
 further contends that any securing structure that also per-
 forms certain additional functions, like serve as a board for
Case: 23-1201    Document: 47      Page: 17    Filed: 04/29/2024

 FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.                            17

 holding electrical components (circuit board), would be dis-
 qualified from meeting the “secured to” limitation.
      The intrinsic evidence does not support Polycom’s posi-
 tion. The claims use the broad functional term “secured to”
 in several places but not in a way that would impose the
 physical requirements pressed by Polycom. For example,
 independent claim 10 requires that “the pyramid shaped
 element [is] secured to the support member” and that the
 “plurality of image processing devices [are] secured to the
 support member.” In addition, dependent claim 11 speci-
 fies that the “plurality of image processing devices are se-
 cured to a portion of the support member extending out
 from the pyramid shaped element.” None of these in-
 stances, however, suggests that the term “secured to” pro-
 hibits intervening structures from performing a second
 function in addition to firmly fixing or attaching the image
 processing devices to the support member.
      Polycom also criticizes the district court’s construction
 for failing to consider the attendant phrase “to the support
 member” in the claim. Appellant’s Br. 72. This criticism is
 unfounded. Although the district court considered the
 meaning of the word “secured,” it did so within the confines
 of determining whether two objects are considered “secured
 to” one another. Infringement Order, 635 F. Supp. 3d at
 927–28. The district court declined to read into the claims
 a requirement for direct contact between the image pro-
 cessing devices and the support member. Id. at 928. It also
 chided Polycom for “offer[ing] no principled reason” for dis-
 tinguishing among different configurations of intervening
 securing structures between the two objects, e.g., a bracket
 versus a plate—an observation that we share. Id. We thus
 do not believe the district court overlooked the phrase “to
 the support member” in claim 10.
     We likewise do not believe the specification mandates
 Polycom’s proposed construction of the “secured to” limita-
 tion. The specification describes an example in which a
Case: 23-1201    Document: 47      Page: 18     Filed: 04/29/2024

 18                            FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.

 strap and spacer is used to secure cameras to a support
 member:
      [C]ameras are mounted to tube 804 by strap or
      belt 812 which presses cameras 810 against
      spacer 814.” The pressure provided by clamp or
      strap 812 provides friction between camera 810,
      spacer 814, and the outer surface of tube 804 and
      thereby mounts cameras 810 to tube 804 in a se-
      cure fashion.
 ’143 patent col. 11 ll. 60–65. While the specification dis-
 closes this lone example for securing the cameras to the
 tube, nothing in the specification forbids intervening secur-
 ing structures from performing another function in order
 for the cameras to be considered “secured to” the tube. We
 therefore conclude that the intrinsic evidence does not re-
 quire intervening structures to be analogous to particular
 components, like bolts, welding, straps, belts, spacers, and
 the like, as urged by Polycom, and does not exclude inter-
 vening securing structures that perform an additional
 function.
      Furthermore, we see no clear error in the district
 court’s use of extrinsic evidence. The dictionary definitions
 of “secure” relied on by the district court (“to attach or fas-
 ten something so that it does not move” and “to fasten one
 object firmly to another”) are consistent with FullView’s
 proposed construction requiring the image processing de-
 vices to be firmly fixed or attached to the support member
 so that the image processing devices cannot be moved. In-
 fringement Order, 635 F. Supp. 3d at 928 (cleaned up).
     We address one last claim construction concern that
 Polycom raises. Polycom contends that FullView fails to
 offer a principled limit to claim scope, hypothesizing that
 under FullView’s proposed construction, because “one
 structure can eventually be traced back to another through
 any number of intervening connections, why is a ceiling
 lamp not ‘secured to’ the floor of a room, or a steering wheel
Case: 23-1201    Document: 47      Page: 19     Filed: 04/29/2024

 FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.                             19

 not ‘secured to’ the trunk of a car?”      Appellant’s Reply
 Br. 31.
     Polycom has not shown that these hypothetical exam-
 ples bear on the narrow dispute before us. At oral argu-
 ment, when asked where the ’143 patent limits the number
 and kind of intervening structures, Polycom’s counsel could
 not provide a response and instead made the conclusory
 statement, “I believe it’s a spectrum. . . . In this case, [the
 Accused Products] are on the other end of the spectrum.”
 Oral Arg. at 31:47–32:07. Yet Polycom poses these hypo-
 theticals without elaborating how attending to them would
 address the present dispute. In this appeal, Polycom con-
 tinuously points to the power- and data-routing function of
 a circuit board—a feature that is not relevant to Polycom’s
 hypotheticals—as the basis for revising the district court’s
 construction. But Polycom does not explain how the ceiling
 light and steering wheel examples should inform our un-
 derstanding of the relationship between the scope of the
 “secured to” limitation and the circuit board, which in this
 case is also designed to serve as a means of securing the
 image processing devices to the support member, when
 combined with the steel chassis. In other words, Polycom
 has not put forth a meaningful case for how to articulate
 the construction of the “secured to” limitation in light of its
 hypotheticals.
     What’s more, in raising these hypotheticals, Polycom
 seems to suggest—without outright saying—that the num-
 ber, nature, and function of intervening structures are per-
 tinent to the correct interpretation of the “secured to”
 limitation. But Polycom does not offer any support for such
 a position. Because the infringement dispute does not re-
 quire us to construe the term “secured to” in such a way
 that resolves the hypotheticals and Polycom does not ex-
 plain the relevance of these hypotheticals to the infringe-
 ment dispute, we decline to address them.
Case: 23-1201    Document: 47      Page: 20   Filed: 04/29/2024

 20                           FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.

     In sum, we reject reading into claim 10 a requirement
 that intervening structures must be analogous to bolts,
 welding, straps, belts, spacers, brackets, and the like and
 must not provide certain functions beyond attaching or fix-
 ing the image processing devices to the support member,
 like a power- or data-routing function. 5
                              C.
     Finally, there is no genuine dispute of material fact
 that precludes summary judgment of literal infringement.
 Polycom alleges that the image sensors in the Accused
 Products are not “secured to the support member” and in-
 stead are “secured to” only the circuit board. Appellant’s
 Br. 71, 82–83. But Polycom’s arguments and evidence on
 this score essentially reprise its now-rejected claim con-
 struction arguments.
     Polycom offered expert testimony that the circuit board
 in the Accused Products has an additional function for
 routing data and power. J.A. 3947–48. And at oral argu-
 ment, relying on this same expert testimony, Polycom’s
 counsel seemingly suggested the image processing devices
 are not “secured to the support member” in the Accused
 Products because the circuit board is “designed” and “in-
 tended” to route data and power. Oral Arg. at 36:34–37:08.

      5  At oral argument, Polycom’s counsel acknowledged
 that intervening structures could perform a function other
 than attaching but that the “primary function” must be an
 attachment function. Oral Arg. at 34:25–35:00. This argu-
 ment seems to implicate a novel proposed construction for
 the term “secured to” that was not raised before the district
 court. In any case, the record does not support such line
 drawing for at least the reasons discussed above with re-
 spect to Polycom’s construction that it has consistently
 pressed before the district court and in its briefing to us.
Case: 23-1201    Document: 47      Page: 21   Filed: 04/29/2024

 FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.                           21

     But Polycom fails to explain how this expert testimony,
 even viewed in the light most favorable to Polycom, creates
 any genuine disputes of material fact as to whether the im-
 age processing devices in the Accused Products are “se-
 cured to the support member.” First, it fails to grapple with
 the undisputed fact that the circuit board is also specially
 designed (with a hole in the middle and screw holes) and
 intended to secure the cameras to the support member.
 Second, the expert testimony presupposes—without any
 basis—that the image processing devices in the Accused
 Products are secured to only the circuit board, not the sup-
 port member, and that the power- and data-routing func-
 tions of the circuit board must be considered in
 determining whether the image processing devices are se-
 cured to the support member. J.A. 3947–48. Polycom does
 not, for example, explain how a reasonable factfinder could
 find that a skilled artisan would understand this addi-
 tional function of the intervening circuit board as preclud-
 ing the board and steel chassis configuration from being
 considered an attachment structure that “secure[s]” the
 image processing devices to the support member as re-
 quired in the claim. The construction of “the plurality of
 image processing devices being secured to the support
 member” requires only that the attachment or fixation be-
 tween the image processing devices and the support mem-
 ber is firm and prevents movement. And Polycom concedes
 that this limitation permits intervening structures to pro-
 vide the securing function. Oral Arg. at 31:30–31:45. Pol-
 ycom’s evidence directed to the additional function of the
 circuit board therefore does not create a dispute of material
 fact.
     Moreover, Polycom fails to identify any other dispute of
 material fact as to whether the Accused Products satisfy
 the limitation “the plurality of image processing devices be-
 ing secured to the support member.” Polycom offers no ev-
 idence indicating that the intervening structures and
 connections in the Accused Products prevent the image
Case: 23-1201    Document: 47      Page: 22    Filed: 04/29/2024

 22                            FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.

 sensors from being considered fixed or attached firmly to
 the support member so that the image processing devices
 cannot be moved. See J.A. 4060 (Polycom’s counsel at the
 summary judgment hearing acknowledging that the Ac-
 cused Products have “a very firm, structurally sound con-
 figuration” for securing the image processing devices to the
 support member). Polycom does not dispute that the inter-
 vening structures—including the circuit board and the
 steel chassis—are rigid and thereby ensure the image sen-
 sors are fixed or attached firmly to the support member.
 And as to the intervening connections—the solder between
 the circuit board and the image sensors, the screws be-
 tween the circuit board and the steel chassis, and the nut
 and washer between the steel chassis and the support
 member—Polycom’s expert agreed that the image sensors
 are soldered onto the circuit board and that the circuit
 board “is firmly mounted on a chrome-plated steel chassis
 with six screws.” J.A. 3947. Polycom does not adduce any
 evidence indicating that the image processing devices in
 the Accused Products are not fixed or attached firmly to the
 support member so that the image processing devices can-
 not be moved.
     Nevertheless, according to Polycom, “the only way to
 link the accused image processing devices to the support
 member is through a tortuous ‘series of fixed connections,’”
 and this series of connections thus confirms that the al-
 leged image processing devices are not secured to the sup-
 port member. Appellant’s Br. 72–73 (quoting Infringement
 Order, 635 F. Supp. 3d at 927). In Polycom’s view, the al-
 leged image processing devices are secured to only the cir-
 cuit board, not the support member. Id. at 80.
      But in the Accused Products, the indirect series of fixed
 connections between the image processing devices and the
 support member satisfies the “secured to” limitation in
 light of the district court’s construction, a construction we
 affirm today. The alleged image processing devices and the
 pyramidal mirror need to be secured to the common
Case: 23-1201    Document: 47      Page: 23    Filed: 04/29/2024

 FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.                            23

 support member to maintain a fixed relationship between
 the image processing devices and the pyramidal mirror.
 J.A. 4060. Each intervening structure (the circuit board
 and steel chassis) contains specific design features dedi-
 cated to ensuring that the alleged image processing devices
 are secured to the support member. The circuit board and
 the steel chassis each have screw holes to receive screws
 that fasten the circuit board to the steel chassis and each
 have a central hole for receiving the support member, and
 the steel chassis is directly attached to the support member
 via the nut and washer. These intervening structures thus
 are designed to cooperate together to ensure the image pro-
 cessing devices remain fixed in relation to the support
 member, a key goal of the entire apparatus. There is no
 evidence that the intervening structures are configured in
 this manner for any purpose other than that.
     In determining what the image processing devices are
 “secured to” in the context of claim 10, we reject Polycom’s
 overly narrow view that exclusively focuses on the direct
 connection between the image processing devices and the
 circuit board. Given that Polycom has acknowledged a sin-
 gle intervening bracket is a permissible intervening struc-
 ture, J.A. 4066–67, that Polycom does not seem to dispute
 that two intervening brackets would also be a permissible
 intervening structure, Appellant’s Br. 29–30 (citing In-
 fringement Order, 635 F. Supp. 3d at 928), and that we
 have rejected Polycom’s argument that the claim excludes
 intervening securing structures that perform certain addi-
 tional functions beyond the securing function, we see no
 principled reason why the “secured to” limitation excludes
 the series of fixed, intervening connections in the Accused
 Products but includes intervening brackets. And given
 that the Accused Products have two intervening securing
 structures (both of which unambiguously ensure that the
 apparatus operates properly by maintaining the cameras
 in the fixed, stable position), we do not need to wrestle with
 Polycom’s more exotic hypotheticals in which a great
Case: 23-1201     Document: 47     Page: 24     Filed: 04/29/2024

 24                            FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.

 multitude of intervening components could be said to cre-
 ate a fixed relationship between two disparate objects.
     We accordingly find no genuine dispute of material fact
 that bars summary judgment of literal infringement.
                              D.
      In conclusion, we adopt the district court’s claim con-
 struction and do not discern any material disputes of fact
 relevant to literal infringement. We thus affirm the dis-
 trict court’s grant of summary judgment of literal infringe-
 ment and denial of summary judgment of noninfringement.
 Because we affirm the district court’s grant of summary
 judgment of literal infringement, we do not reach the dis-
 trict court’s determination that the Accused Products sat-
 isfy the “secured to” limitation under the doctrine of
 equivalents.
                         CONCLUSION
     We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
 reverse the grant of summary judgment of nonobviousness
 and affirm the denial of summary judgment of obviousness,
 the grant of summary judgment of infringement, and the
 denial of summary judgment of noninfringement. We re-
 mand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
      The parties shall bear their own costs.
   REVERSED-IN-PART, AFFIRMED-IN-PART, AND
                 REMANDED
Case: 23-1201    Document: 47       Page: 25    Filed: 04/29/2024

         NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

    United States Court of Appeals
        for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                     FULLVIEW, INC.,
                      Plaintiff-Appellee

                               v.

                     POLYCOM, INC.,
                    Defendant-Appellant
                   ______________________

                         2023-1201
                   ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Northern District of California in No. 3:18-cv-00510-EMC,
 Judge Edward M. Chen.
                 ______________________

 DYK, Circuit Judge, dissenting in part and concurring in
 part.
     While I join part I of the majority opinion, I respectfully
 dissent from part II, which affirms the grant of summary
 judgment on infringement. Contrary to the majority opin-
 ion, I think there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to
 whether the cameras (i.e., the image processing devices)
 are “secured to the support member” as required by claim
 10 of the ’143 patent.
     The district court construed the phrase “the plurality
 of image processing devices being secured to the support
Case: 23-1201    Document: 47     Page: 26    Filed: 04/29/2024

 2                            FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.

 member” to mean “fix[ing] or attach[ing] the plurality of
 image processing devices firmly to the support member so
 that [the image processing devices] cannot be moved.” Maj.
 Op. at 15 (first citing Infringement Order, 635 F. Supp. 3d
 at 927–28; and then citing J.A. 3967). The majority opinion
 agrees with this construction, and rejects Polycom’s alter-
 native construction. I agree that the district court’s con-
 struction was correct. However, the district court then
 applied that construction and determined that there is no
 genuine issue of fact as to whether this limitation is satis-
 fied because the cameras in the accused device are “secured
 through a series of fixed connections” to the support mem-
 ber and “[n]othing prevents fastening via intermediate el-
 ements.” Infringement Order, 635 F. Supp. 3d at 927–28.
 Here, I disagree.
     I think there is a fact question under the agreed claim
 construction as to whether an object that is fixed or at-
 tached to another object needs to be directly fixed or at-
 tached to that other object, or whether a connection
 through intervening structures could also fall within the
 claim scope. The Oxford Dictionary definition, relied on by
 the district court and approved by the majority, see Maj.
 Op. at 18, provides many examples of securing objects, and
 in each case where two objects are secured together the ob-
 jects are directly secured to each other rather than through
 a chain of multiple intervening structures. Secure, OXFORD
 ENGLISH DICTIONARY, https://www.oed.com/dictionary/se-
 cure_v?tab=meaning_and_use#23684520 (last visited
 April 15, 2024) (listing securing books with chains, secur-
 ing hair with a comb, and securing a door with a latch).
 Also, for example, it would strain common usage of the
 term “secured” or “attached” to say one’s toe is secured or
 attached to one’s finger through the skeleton, or a passen-
 ger on an airplane is secured to the wing through the seat-
 belt, or that an apple on a tree is secured to the ground
 through the stem, tree trunk, and tree roots, or that a boat
Case: 23-1201     Document: 47      Page: 27    Filed: 04/29/2024

 FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.                               3

 is secured to a dock by tying it to a different boat that is
 itself tied to the dock.
     The district court agreed that in the accused device the
 “imag[e] processing devices are not mounted directly on the
 support member.” Infringement Order, 635 F. Supp. 3d at
 927. The district court explained the cameras “are
 mounted on an intervening structure: the cameras’ lens is
 epoxied to an image sensor, which in turn is soldered onto
 the circuit board, which is screwed to a steel chassis with a
 circular hole through which passes the support member.
 The support member is attached to the chassis with a
 washer and nut.” Id. (citations omitted). Based on these
 facts, and the common meaning of secured or attached and
 using the district court’s claim construction, I think a rea-
 sonable juror could conclude that connecting two objects
 through an intervening structure in this circumstance is
 not securing or attaching or fixing the two objects to one
 another.
      Under our cases, once there is a claim construction, it
 is the jury’s job to apply the construction to the accused de-
 vice. The jury is tasked to apply the claim construction as
 determined by the court. See Google LLC v. EcoFactor,
 Inc., 92 F.4th 1049, 1055 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“[A] trial
 judge construes a claim and gives that construction to a
 jury for application to facts. In this instance, the jury’s ap-
 plication does not establish a claim construction . . . .”); see
 also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Sys., Inc., 340 F.3d
 1314, 1320–21 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The court’s role at sum-
 mary judgment is simply to determine whether there is a
 genuine issue of material fact for a reasonable jury under
 the court’s claim construction. The jury is not charged with
 considering another rejected claim construction for that
 analysis, and yet that appears to be what the district court
 and the majority have done here in determining infringe-
 ment is a fact issue.
Case: 23-1201       Document: 47     Page: 28    Filed: 04/29/2024

 4                               FULLVIEW, INC. v. POLYCOM, INC.

     Because I think a reasonable juror could conclude that
 the cameras are not attached or fixed to the support mem-
 ber as required by the claim construction, I think there is
 a genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary
 judgment. The majority’s analysis of the infringement is-
 sue is the very kind of analysis that juries (not the court on
 appeal) are charged with undertaking to determine in-
 fringement.
        I respectfully dissent from part II of the majority opin-
 ion.