Not All Intrinsic Evidence Is Equal

• Published date: 27 June 2022
• Subject Matter: Intellectual Property, Patent
• Law Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
• Author: Ms Alissa E. Green, Courtney Bolin, Angeline Premraj, Stacy Lewis and Thomas Irving

Holding

In Ultra-Mek, Inc. v. United Furniture Industries, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-281, 2022 WL 1799235 (M.D.N.C. June 2, 2022), the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina ("the Court") construed the claim term "opposed first and second ends." The Court construed this term by analyzing three sources of intrinsic evidence: the claim language, the specification, and prior art disclosed in the patents.

Background

Ultra-Mek, Inc. ("Plaintiff") sued United Furniture Industries, Inc. and others ("Defendants") for infringement of patents related to a reclining chair, U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,016,348 ("the '348 patent") and 8,297,693 ("the '693 patent"). Id. at *1. During the claim construction phase of the case, the Court construed disputed claim terms, but those terms did not include the phrase "opposed first and second ends." Id.

At the summary judgment stage, the Court denied both parties' summary judgment motions. Id. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's literal infringement theory because the allegedly infringing mechanism "d[id] not have literal opposed ends in the format envisioned by the patent." Id. (internal citation omitted). In response to this language, Defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude any trial testimony asserting claims were literally infringed, which the Court denied as unripe. Id. The parties agreed to file supplemental claim construction briefs regarding the phrase "opposed first and second ends." Id.

Plaintiff's proposed construction was "opposed first and second points on the [power actuating unit/actuating unit/linear actuating unit] that are connected to the [reclining/actuating] mechanism." Id. at *3 (brackets in original). Defendants' proposed construction was the "[p]lain and ordinary meaning; wherein an' end' is one of the lengthwise extremities of the [power actuating unit/actuating unit/linear actuating unit]." Id.

Court's Analysis

The Court first decided whether a construction of "plain and ordinary meaning" would be appropriate. The Court found that it would not because "the phrase 'first and second opposed ends' is less widely utilized language with a much less readily apparent common understanding and consequently may have a particular meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art." Id.

The Court then began its analysis with the intrinsic evidence because "[t]he intrinsic record in a patent case is the primary tool to supply the context for interpretation of disputed claim terms." Id. at *4 (citing...