Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc.

Citation311 F.3d 1116
Decision Date14 November 2002
Docket NumberNo. 01-1417.,01-1417.
PartiesVERVE, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CRANE CAMS, INC., Crower Cams & Equipment Company, Inc., Trend Products, Inc., and Competition Cams, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, and Manton Racing Products, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

John A. Artz, Artz & Artz, P.C., of Southfield, MI, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief was John S. Artz, and Robert P. Renke.

Geoffrey R. Myers, Hall, Priddy, Myers & Vande Sande, of Potomac, MD, argued for defendants-appellees. Of counsel on the brief was James E. Wynne, Butzel Long, of Detroit, Michigan.

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges.

PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Verve, LLC, appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,1 granting summary judgment that claims 1, 6, and 13 of United States Patent No. 4,850,315 (the '315 patent) are invalid. We reverse the judgment with respect to anticipation, vacate with respect to indefiniteness, and remand for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

The '315 patent describes and claims improved push rods for internal combustion engines. Push rods are used to actuate rocker arms which open and close the intake and exhaust valves of cylinders of engines designed for their use. In such engines the push rods ride on cam followers, which are raised and lowered by the camshaft as it rotates. As engine speeds have increased so have the number of piston strokes, requiring a corresponding increase in the number of valve openings and closings; this in turn increases the movement of and forces on the push rods. Stronger push rods became necessary and, to lighten their weight, hollow push rods were developed. However, there was a need for stronger and stiffer rods that could be manufactured from a single piece of metal without the need for inserts or other supporting structure.

The '315 patent claims a hollow push rod whose overall diameter is larger at the middle than at the ends and that has substantially constant wall thickness throughout the rod, and rounded seats at the tips. This novel shape is said to provide the advantages of increased strength and stiffness, permitting higher engine speeds and greater valve train forces. The '315 patent illustrates the invention as follows:

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

As seen in the drawings and as required by the claims, the push rod 10" is configured whereby the outer diameter of the middle portion is larger than the outer diameter of the end portions 18 and 20. The end portions have a rounded tip 52 forming a seat, that engages a pocket of a cam follower at one end and a pocket of a rocker arm at the other end. The shape of the push rod provides increased strength, and because it is hollow it is relatively light. Since the rounded tips are integrally formed, there are no problems with disengagement and the rod is relatively inexpensive to manufacture. Claim 1 is representative:

1. A push rod for an internal combustion engine comprising:

a single piece of metal in the form of an elongated hollow tube having a middle portion, first and second end portions and rounded seats at the tips thereof,

said middle portion having a larger outer diameter than the end portions,

and said tube having substantially constant wall thickness throughout the length of the tube and the tips thereon.

The district court granted summary judgment of invalidity on two grounds: that the claims are indefinite, and that the claimed invention is anticipated.

INDEFINITENESS

The district court found that the expression "substantially constant wall thickness" in the claims is not supported in the specification and prosecution history by a sufficiently clear definition of "substantially." The court explained:

In this case, judging by the intrinsic record, the meaning of "substantially" constant wall thickness is unclear. While not the basis of this court's decision, the ambiguity of this term was demonstrated at the motion hearing by the plaintiff's willingness to include great variations in wall thickness within the parameters of "substantially" constant wall thickness in a manner that renders them without meaning.

The court further explained that the word "substantially" was at issue because the parties disputed the scope of "substantially constant wall thickness," and that liability for infringement depends on whether "substantially" embraces the accused push rods. The court recognized that the usage "substantially" may be adequately definite in some cases, but ruled that in this case it was indefinite because it was not further defined. The court cited Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1218, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1031 (Fed. Cir.1991), for its statement that "When the meaning of claims is in doubt, especially when, as is the case here, there is close prior art, they are properly declared invalid."

We conclude that the court erred in law, in requiring that the intrinsic evidence of the specification and prosecution history is the sole source of meaning of words that are used in a technologic context. While reference to intrinsic evidence is primary in interpreting claims, the criterion is the meaning of words as they would be understood by persons in the field of the invention. Patent documents are written for persons familiar with the relevant field; the patentee is not required to include in the specification information readily understood by practitioners, lest every patent be required to be written as a comprehensive tutorial and treatise for the generalist, instead of a concise statement for persons in the field. Thus resolution of any ambiguity arising from the claims and specification may be aided by extrinsic evidence of usage and meaning of a term in the context of the invention. The question is not whether the word "substantially" has a fixed meaning as applied to "constant wall thickness," but how the phrase would be understood by persons...

To continue reading

Request your trial
147 cases
  • Presidio Components Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp..
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • April 13, 2010
    ...tutorial and treatise for the generalist, instead of a concise statement for persons in the field.” See Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1119 (Fed.Cir.2002). Rather, a patent is sufficiently enabled if a person of ordinary skill in the art could make and use the invention with......
  • Highway Equipment Co., Inc. v. Cives Corp., 04-CV-147-LRR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • March 7, 2007
    ...and that patents are addressed to be read by others of skill in the pertinent art." Id. (citing, in part, Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1119 (Fed.Cir.2002)). In certain cases, however, the patentee may unequivocally impart a novel meaning to claim terms. Omega Eng'g, Inc. v......
  • Phillips v. Awh Corp., 03-1269.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • July 12, 2005
    ...and that patents are addressed to and intended to be read by others of skill in the pertinent art. See Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1119 (Fed.Cir.2002) (patent documents are meant to be "a concise statement for persons in the field"); In re Nelson, 47 C.C.P.A. 1031, 280 F.......
  • Unified Patents, LLC v. Oceana Innovations LLC
    • United States
    • United States Patent and Trademark Office. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • February 14, 2022
    ...the prior art." Wasica Fin. GmbHv. Cont'lAuto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). "For this reason, it has long been understood that ambiguous references do not, as a matter of law, anticipate a cl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter §2.04 Claim Definiteness Requirement
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Mueller on Patent Law Volume I: Patentability and Validity Title CHAPTER 1 Basic Principles
    • Invalid date
    ...806 F.2d at 1576.[229] For discussion of the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112(a) (eff. Sept. 16, 2012), see infra Chapter 4.[230] 311 F.3d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2002).[231] Verve, 311 F.3d at 1119 (emphasis added).[232] Verve, 311 F.3d at 1119.[233] Verve, 311 F.3d at 1119.[234] Verve, 31......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT