Court Opinion

ID: 9351743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-03 16:00:27.430106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:02:35.111233
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1318    Document: 44     Page: 1   Filed: 01/03/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

           TIPPMANN ENGINEERING, LLC,
                 Plaintiff-Appellant

                             v.

  INNOVATIVE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
         MICHAEL J. MCGINNIS, JR.,
              Defendants-Appellees
             ______________________

                        2022-1318
                  ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Western District of Virginia in No. 5:19-cv-00087-MFU-
 JCH, Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski.
                 ______________________

                 Decided: January 3, 2023
                  ______________________

     ANDREW M. MCCOY, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath
 LLP, Indianapolis, IN, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also
 represented by ALEXANDRA LAKSHMANAN LUSTER, Denver,
 CO; LUCAS J. TOMSICH, East Palo Alto, CA.

    JOSHUA GLIKIN, Bowie & Jensen, LLC, Towson, MD, ar-
 gued for defendants-appellees.
                 ______________________
Case: 22-1318     Document: 44     Page: 2    Filed: 01/03/2023

 2                            TIPPMANN ENGINEERING, LLC v.
                     INNOVATIVE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS, INC.

     Before REYNA, SCHALL, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
 CHEN, Circuit Judge.
      Tippmann Engineering, LLC (Tippmann) sued Innova-
 tive Refrigeration Systems, Inc., and Michael J. McGinnis,
 Jr., (collectively, Innovative) for infringement of U.S. Pa-
 tent No. 9,297,570 (’570 patent). Following the district
 court’s claim construction order, the parties stipulated to
 non-infringement, and the district court entered final judg-
 ment. Because we agree with the district court’s construc-
 tion of the dispositive claim term, we affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
                               I
      The ’570 patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent
 No. 8,783,047 (’047 patent) and is directed to a “large ware-
 house, building, or structure” that is “used as a giant
 freezer that both freezes and maintains perishable foods or
 like products.” ’570 patent col. 1 ll. 29–32. Unlike “two-
 stage freezer warehouses,” where products are rapidly fro-
 zen in “blast rooms” before being “moved to the storage
 parts of the warehouse,” the ’570 patent teaches a “one-
 stage freezing storage system” that utilizes “a specially
 configured rack system that assists [in] freezing the prod-
 uct directly in the open warehouse space.” Id. at col. 1
 ll. 32–42. Removing the blast rooms has two benefits.
 First, more space can be dedicated to storing the product,
 thus “[i]ncreasing capacity or maneuvering room in a ware-
 house.” Id. at col. 2 ll. 4–8. Second, by freezing the product
 in the same location that it is stored, the ’570 patent’s con-
 figuration “no longer requires transporting the pallet from
 the blast room to a separate storage location in the ware-
 house.” Id. at col. 2 ll. 24–27.
     The ’570 patent specification is short but very clearly
 describes a lone embodiment in which the disclosed ware-
 house comprises “rows of racking” separated by aisles. Id.
 at col. 2 ll. 10–11. In each row, “pallets 4 are positioned
Case: 22-1318      Document: 44      Page: 3     Filed: 01/03/2023

 TIPPMANN ENGINEERING, LLC v.                                   3
 INNOVATIVE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS, INC.

 several high on opposing sides and along chamber 6,” as
 shown below:

 Id. FIG. 4, col. 1 ll. 46–48; see also id. at col. 2 ll. 28–34.
 The ’570 patent explains that its specially configured rack
 system operates as follows:
     Cold air produced in warehouse 2 is drawn through
     spacers . . . separating rows of cases of product on
     the pallet. This air cools the product down while
     being drawn into chamber 6 indicated by direc-
     tional arrow 16. In an illustrative embodiment,
     and as further discussed herein, openings 30 along
     the periphery of chamber 6 mate with cases 22 on
     the pallets 4 . . . . The only significant way to move
     the cold air inside warehouse 2 is by going through
     and/or around the product on pallet 4. The air 16
     drawn into chamber 6 can then be recooled and re-
     circulated, or exhausted. Because the cold air
     moves around product prior to entering chamber 6,
     it provides an efficient means for freezing.
 Id. at col. 1 ll. 48–59; see also id. at col. 2 ll. 29–32 (“[F]an
 12 draws air in as indicated by directional arrow 16
Case: 22-1318       Document: 44      Page: 4   Filed: 01/03/2023

 4                               TIPPMANN ENGINEERING, LLC v.
                        INNOVATIVE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS, INC.

 through and around cases of product 22 on pallets 4 before
 entering chamber 6.”).
     The patent also discloses “chillers” that produce the
 cold air that flows through the product to both freeze it and
 maintain its frozen condition:
     Chillers 8 inside warehouse 2 produce the cold air
     that flows through aisles 10 and into chambers 6.
     It is appreciated that chillers 8 can be positioned in
     different locations as needed inside ware-
     house 2. . . . The chilled air passes through open
     spaces near or through cases of product in order to
     enter chamber 6. Air handlers, such as fans 12 in-
     side or in air flow communication with chamber 6
     assist in drawing the air within warehouse 2
     through the palletized and/or through the product
     cases and into the channel. Continuing this pro-
     cess freezes the product as well as maintains its
     frozen condition.
 Id. at col. 1 l. 60 – col. 2 l. 4.
     Independent claim 1 is representative and recites:
     1. An installation for warehousing pallets of prod-
     uct, comprising:
          a warehouse defining a warehouse space set
          to a desired air temperature; and
          a pallet racking assembly disposed in the
          warehouse space, the pallet racking assem-
          bly comprising:
               a pallet receiving space sized and
               configured to receive a pallet as-
               sembly including a pallet and a plu-
               rality of vertically stacked rows of
               cases disposed on the pallet and
               providing an airflow pathway
Case: 22-1318    Document: 44     Page: 5   Filed: 01/03/2023

 TIPPMANN ENGINEERING, LLC v.                             5
 INNOVATIVE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS, INC.

            through the vertically stacked rows
            of cases;
            an airflow chamber including an
            air inlet and an air outlet;
            a fan positioned to direct air into
            the airflow chamber from the air in-
            let and exhaust air into the ware-
            house space through the air outlet;
            and
            a wall disposed between the pallet
            receiving space and the airflow
            chamber, the wall having an air-
            flow opening defining an opening
            periphery, the opening sized and
            positioned to be sealingly engaged
            by the pallet assembly when the
            pallet assembly is pressed against
            the opening periphery, whereby the
            air at the desired air temperature
            can pass into the airflow pathway
            of the pallet assembly to thereby
            transfer heat between the product
            and the air.
 Id. at col. 4 ll. 24–48 (emphases added). The italicized
 phrases are the focus of this appeal.
                             II
     Tippmann sued Innovative, alleging that Innovative
 infringed claims 1–4, 8–16, and 19–22 of the ’570 patent.
 J.A. 1–2. On November 9, 2021, the district court issued a
 claim construction order. Tippmann Eng’g, LLC v. Innova-
 tive Refrigeration Sys., Inc., No. 5:19-cv-87, 2021 WL
 5236872 (W.D. Va. Nov. 9, 2021) (Claim Construction Or-
 der).
Case: 22-1318     Document: 44     Page: 6    Filed: 01/03/2023

 6                            TIPPMANN ENGINEERING, LLC v.
                     INNOVATIVE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS, INC.

      Relevant here, the parties disputed whether “an air in-
 let and an air outlet” and “a fan positioned to direct the air
 into the airflow chamber from the air inlet and exhaust air
 into the warehouse space through the air outlet” (collec-
 tively, Air Flow Terms) require a negative-pressure ar-
 rangement (also called an induced air arrangement), in
 which air is drawn or sucked through the products to be
 frozen, or whether the Air Flow Terms also encompass a
 positive-pressure arrangement, in which air is forced or
 pushed through the products to be frozen. Id. at *2; see also
 J.A. 237–38; J.A. 542 ¶ 47. The district court found the
 claims are limited to a negative-pressure arrangement be-
 cause “all figures and embodiments disclosed in the ’047
 and ’570 Patents’ shared specification either imply an in-
 duced air arrangement or expressly disclose an induced air
 arrangement” and that “no other embodiment or design is
 ever taught, illustrated, or suggested.” Claim Construction
 Order, 2021 WL 5236872, at *12–13. The district court also
 found that the “prosecution history of the ’047 Patent in-
 forms and limits the scope of the ’570 claims” because Tipp-
 mann distinguished two prior art references disclosing
 positive-pressure arrangements by “vigorously argu[ing]
 that all of its independent claims required an ‘induced air
 arrangement,’ i.e., negative air pressure.” Id. at *7. Thus,
 the district court construed “an air inlet and an air outlet”
 to mean “air intake(s) positioned along the wall of the air
 chamber that correspond to each pallet position, and an air
 outlet positioned at the top of the chamber from which air
 is exhausted from the chamber back into the warehouse
 space.” Id. at *16. The court also construed “a fan posi-
 tioned to direct the air into the airflow chamber from the
 air inlet and exhaust air into the warehouse space through
 the air outlet” to mean “the fan is positioned to create a
 negative pressure in the chamber that pulls air from the
 air inlets/intakes and pushes the air through the air outlet
 at the top of the chamber.” Id.
Case: 22-1318     Document: 44     Page: 7    Filed: 01/03/2023

 TIPPMANN ENGINEERING, LLC v.                                7
 INNOVATIVE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS, INC.

      The parties further disputed the construction of the
 term “a warehouse defining a warehouse space set to a de-
 sired air temperature” (Warehouse Term). The court first
 explained that, although the ’570 patent’s claims “do not
 expressly include the air chiller element,” “it would be clear
 to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the system
 needs a chiller to function.” Id. at *7 (citing ’570 patent
 col. 1 ll. 60–61). The court then found that “the chiller must
 be within the warehouse space” because (1) the specifica-
 tion teaches that the chiller “can be positioned in different
 locations as needed inside warehouse 2,” ’570 patent col. 1
 ll. 61–63, and (2) “Tippmann emphatically distinguished
 [the ’047 patent’s] application from [the prior art], assert-
 ing that its independent claims require ‘at least one chiller
 in the . . . warehouse space,’” J.A. 937. See Claim Construc-
 tion Order, 2021 WL 5236872, at *7, *11. Thus, the court
 construed “a warehouse defining a warehouse space set to
 a desired air temperature” to mean “a structure containing
 a space used as a giant freezer that contains a chiller and
 both freezes and maintains perishable foods or like prod-
 ucts.” Id. at *16.
     Based on the court’s constructions, the parties stipu-
 lated that Innovative did not infringe the asserted claims
 and requested the court enter judgment of non-infringe-
 ment. J.A. 4–5. The district court entered a final judgment
 on December 3, 2021. J.A. 1–2. Tippmann timely ap-
 pealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and
 1295(a)(1).
                         DISCUSSION
     We review claim construction based on intrinsic evi-
 dence de novo and review any findings of fact regarding ex-
 trinsic evidence for clear error. SpeedTrack, Inc. v.
 Amazon.com, Inc., 998 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (cit-
 ing Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318,
 331–32 (2015)).
Case: 22-1318     Document: 44     Page: 8    Filed: 01/03/2023

 8                            TIPPMANN ENGINEERING, LLC v.
                     INNOVATIVE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS, INC.

                      I. Air Flow Terms
     Tippmann argues that the district court’s construction
 of the Air Flow Terms is erroneous because the plain and
 ordinary meaning of the claims does not require a negative-
 pressure arrangement, and neither the ’570 patent’s speci-
 fication nor the prosecution history of the ’047 or ’570 pa-
 tents     disclaim     positive-pressure     arrangements.
 Appellant’s Br. 24–52. We disagree.
     Claim construction requires determining how a skilled
 artisan would understand a claim term “in the context of
 the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips v.
 AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
 The specification is the “single best guide to the meaning
 of a disputed term,” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996), and is “the primary
 basis for construing the claims,” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315
 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, alt-
 hough claim terms are normally given their ordinary and
 customary meaning, where the inventor has disavowed
 claim scope by manifesting that the invention does or does
 not include a particular aspect, that intention “is regarded
 as dispositive.” Id. at 1316 (citing SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v.
 Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337,
 1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
      “A disavowal must be clear, but it need not be explicit.”
 Techtronic Indus. Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 944 F.3d 901,
 907 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Sy-
 mantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). “Dis-
 avowal ‘may be inferred from clear limiting descriptions of
 the invention in the specification or prosecution history.’”
 Id. (first quoting Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675
 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012); and then citing Blackbird
 Tech LLC v. ELB Elecs., Inc., 895 F.3d 1374, 1377–78 (Fed.
 Cir. 2018) (collecting cases and finding no disavowal where
 the specification did not teach that the feature in question
 was “important, essential, or critical to the invention”)). In
Case: 22-1318      Document: 44      Page: 9     Filed: 01/03/2023

 TIPPMANN ENGINEERING, LLC v.                                    9
 INNOVATIVE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS, INC.

 the end, “the purpose of claim construction is to ‘capture
 the scope of the actual invention,’ and whether ‘the embod-
 iments . . . define the outer limits of the claim term,’ or are
 ‘merely . . . exemplary in nature,’ is a question that must
 be determined in the context of the particular patent.’” Id.
 (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323–24).
      We conclude the ’570 patent is singularly devoted to a
 negative-pressure system in which cold air is drawn into
 the chamber. The specification discloses as the invention
 a specially configured rack system that draws cold air from
 the warehouse through the palletized product to both
 freeze and store the product. See, e.g., ’570 patent col. 1
 ll. 48–51 (“Cold air produced in warehouse 2 is drawn
 through spacers 20 (see FIG. 6) separating rows of cases of
 product on the pallet. This air cools the product down while
 being drawn into chamber 6 indicated by directional arrow
 16.” (emphases added)); id. at col 1 l. 56 (“The air 16 drawn
 into chamber 6 . . . .” (emphasis added)); id. at col. 1
 ll. 57–59 (“Because the cold air moves around the product
 prior to entering chamber 6, it provides an efficient means
 for freezing.” (emphasis added)); id. at col. 1 l. 66 – col 2 l. 4
 (“Air handlers, such as fans 12 inside or in air flow commu-
 nication with chamber 6, assist in drawing the air within
 warehouse 2 through the palletized and/or through the
 product cases and into the channel. Continuing this pro-
 cess freezes the product as well as maintains its frozen con-
 dition.” (emphasis added)); id. at col. 2 ll. 29–32 (“[F]an 12
 draws air in as indicated by directional arrow 16 through
 and around cases of product 22 on pallets 4 before entering
 chamber 6.” (emphasis added)); see also id. at Abstract (“A
 plurality of racking structures each define an air flow
 chamber having air intake openings on opposite sides
 thereof and an air outlet to enable freezing air to be drawn
 into the chamber through the intake openings and ex-
 hausting into the warehouse space. Pallets on pallet
 guides are pressed against the intake openings such that
 freezing air is drawn through the palletized product to
Case: 22-1318    Document: 44      Page: 10    Filed: 01/03/2023

 10                           TIPPMANN ENGINEERING, LLC v.
                     INNOVATIVE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS, INC.

 thereby quickly freeze the product.” (emphases added)); id.
 FIGS. 4, 6, 10 (arrows 16 depicting air flow from the ware-
 house aisles, through the product, and into chamber 6).
     This arrangement, whereby cold air is drawn from the
 warehouse through the palletized product and into the
 chamber between the pallets, is a negative-pressure ar-
 rangement, and no other arrangement is taught or sug-
 gested. When viewed in its entirety, the ’570 patent’s
 disclosure is unambiguously focused on and limited to a
 negative-pressure arrangement, thereby excluding a posi-
 tive-pressure system. See E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
 v. Unifrax I LLC, 921 F.3d 1060, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
 (“When the specification makes clear that the invention
 does not include a particular feature, that feature is
 deemed to be outside the reach of the claims of the patent,
 even though the language of the claims, read without ref-
 erence to the specification, might be considered broad
 enough to encompass the feature in question.” (internal
 quotation marks and citation omitted)). Thus, we find the
 ’570 patent’s specification clearly disavows a positive-pres-
 sure arrangement.
     Tippmann presents three arguments in response.
 First, Tippmann argues that dependent claims 5–7 and
 17–18 recite limitations that require a negative-pressure
 arrangement, and thus the independent claims are not so
 limited. Appellant’s Br. 46–50. But as Tippmann’s brief
 concedes, claim differentiation only creates a presumption
 that each claim in a patent has a different scope. Appel-
 lant’s Br. 46–47 (citing Versa Corp. v. Ag-Bag Int’l Ltd., 392
 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). As we have explained,
 “claim differentiation is not a hard and fast rule, and the
 presumption can be overcome by a contrary construction
 required by the specification or prosecution history, such
 as via a disclaimer.” GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight,
 Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation omit-
 ted). Here, any claim differentiation presumption is
Case: 22-1318     Document: 44      Page: 11    Filed: 01/03/2023

 TIPPMANN ENGINEERING, LLC v.                                 11
 INNOVATIVE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS, INC.

 overcome by the specification’s clear disavowal of a posi-
 tive-pressure arrangement.
     Second, Tippmann argues that construing the claims
 to require a negative-pressure arrangement improperly
 reads in limitations from the only disclosed embodiment.
 Appellant’s Br. 43–46. We disagree. Tippmann’s argu-
 ment ignores, for example, the fact that the Abstract,
 which does not refer to the “illustrative embodiment,” ex-
 plains that “freezing air is drawn through the palletized
 product to thereby quickly freeze the product.” ’570 patent
 Abstract; see also Hill-Rom Co. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.,
 209 F.3d 1337, 1341 n.* (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“We have fre-
 quently looked to the abstract to determine the scope of the
 invention . . . .” (citations omitted)). Additionally, as we ex-
 plained in Phillips, “[o]ne of the best ways to teach a person
 of ordinary skill in the art how to make and use the inven-
 tion is to provide an example of how to practice the inven-
 tion in a particular case,” and that “[m]uch of the time,
 upon reading the specification in that context, it will be-
 come clear whether the patentee is setting out specific ex-
 amples of the invention . . . or whether the patentee
 instead intends for the claims and the embodiments in the
 specification to be strictly coextensive.” 415 F.3d at 1323;
 see also id. (citing Snow v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 121
 U.S. 617, 630 (1887) (it was clear from the specification
 that there was “nothing in the context to indicate that the
 patentee contemplated any alternative” embodiment to the
 one presented)). Here, we find the specification’s repeated
 disclosure of a negative-pressure arrangement, coupled
 with the figures illustrating a negative-pressure air flow,
 describes the invention, not a mere example of the inven-
 tion. See also Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. T-Mobile USA,
 Inc., 450 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Although
 claims need not be limited to the preferred embodiment
 when the invention is more broadly described, neither do
 the claims enlarge what is patented beyond what the
Case: 22-1318    Document: 44      Page: 12     Filed: 01/03/2023

 12                           TIPPMANN ENGINEERING, LLC v.
                     INNOVATIVE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS, INC.

 inventor has described as the invention.” (internal quota-
 tion marks and citation omitted)).
     Third, Tippmann argues that the district court erred in
 relying on the ’047 patent’s prosecution history. Appel-
 lant’s Br. 28–43. We agree that statements regarding the
 specific limitations at issue in the ’047 patent’s prosecution
 history do not apply to the claims of the ’570 patent. Saun-
 ders Grp., Inc. v. Comfortrac, Inc., 492 F.3d 1326, 1333
 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“When the purported disclaimers are di-
 rected to specific claim terms that have been omitted or
 materially altered in subsequent applications (rather than
 to the invention itself), those disclaimers do not apply.” (ci-
 tation omitted)). But the district court’s reliance on prose-
 cution history is harmless because we find that the ’570
 patent’s specification clearly disavows a positive-pressure
 arrangement.
     We thus adopt the district court’s construction of “an
 air inlet and an air outlet” and “a fan positioned to direct
 the air into the airflow chamber from the air inlet and ex-
 haust air into the warehouse space through the air outlet.”
                   II. Warehouse Term
      Tippmann also argues that the district court erred in
 construing the term “a warehouse defining a warehouse
 space set to a desired air temperature” to require a chiller
 located in the warehouse space. Appellant’s Br. 52–62. We
 find it unnecessary to address this argument, however, be-
 cause our construction of the ’570 patent’s Air Flow Terms
 as limited to a negative-pressure arrangement is sufficient
 to affirm the judgment below. See Claim Construction Or-
 der, 2021 WL 5236872, at *2 (“As Tippmann noted at oral
 argument, if the ’570 Patent was limited to a negative pres-
 sure system, ‘that would end our case.’” (citation omitted)).
                         CONCLUSION
    We have considered Tippmann’s remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
Case: 22-1318    Document: 44     Page: 13   Filed: 01/03/2023

 TIPPMANN ENGINEERING, LLC v.                             13
 INNOVATIVE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS, INC.

 adopt the district court’s construction of “an air inlet and
 an air outlet” and its construction of “a fan positioned to
 direct the air into the airflow chamber from the air inlet
 and exhaust air into the warehouse space through the air
 outlet,” and we affirm the district court’s judgment based
 thereon.
                        AFFIRMED