Arlington Indus. Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings Inc.

• Decision Date: 11 April 2011
• Docket Number: No. 2010–1025.,2010–1025.
• Parties: ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant,v.BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC., Defendant–Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

632 F.3d 1246

97 U.S.P.Q.2d 1811

ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC., Defendant–Appellee.

No. 2010–1025.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Jan. 20, 2011.Rehearing En Banc Denied April 11, 2011.

Kathryn L. Clune, Crowell & Moring, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With her on the brief was Lucy Grace D. Noyola. Of counsel on the brief were Carter G. Phillips and Eric A. Shumsky, of Sidley Austin LLP, of Washington, DC.Deanne E. Maynard, Morrison & Foerster LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With her on the brief were Mark E. Ungerman, Seth M. Galanter and Marc A. Hearron. Of counsel on the brief was Alan M. Anderson, Briggs and Morgan, P.A., of Minneapolis, MN.Before RADER, Chief Judge, LOURIE and MOORE, Circuit Judges.Opinion for the court filed by Chief Judge, RADER. Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part filed by Circuit Judge, LOURIE.RADER, Chief Judge.

Two concomitant litigations between Arlington Industries, Inc. (“Arlington”) and Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. (“Bridgeport”), both from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, produced different constructions of the same claim term from Arlington's U.S. Patent No. 5,266,050 (“the '050 patent”). In the earlier filed case, the court construed the term “spring metal adaptor” to mean “an adaptor made of spring metal.” Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., No. 01–CV–0485, 2008 WL 542966, at *6 (M.D.Pa. Feb. 25, 2008) (“ Arlington I construction ”). In the later filed case, here on appeal, the district court construed the same term to require a “split,” such that the diameter of the adaptor can easily expand or contract. Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., No. 06–CV–1105, 2007 WL 4276565, at *15 (M.D.Pa. Dec. 4, 2007) (“ Arlington II construction ”). The Arlington II court similarly construed the term “spring steel adapter” from U.S. Patent No. 6,521,831 (“the '831 patent”) as requiring a split.¹ Id. at *16. On motions for summary judgment, the Arlington II court ruled that certain Bridgeport products did not infringe the asserted claims of the '050 and ' 831 patents. Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 615 F.Supp.2d 337, 344–46 (M.D.Pa.2009) (“ Arlington II ”). Because the Arlington II court misconstrued the “spring metal adaptor” and “spring steel adapter” terms by importing a “split” limitation from the specifications into the claims, this court vacates the grants of summary judgment and remands.

I.

A.

Before the '050 patent, the most common form of electrical connector (used to connect cable to a junction box) featured a threaded lock nut, which had to be screwed into the junction box with both hands. '050 patent col.1 11.17–36. Matching the threaded lock nut to the connector could be difficult, especially if the junction box was difficult to reach. Id. col.1 ll.30–34.

Arlington's '050 patent discloses an improved electrical connector that snaps into electrical junction boxes with one hand instead of two. Id. col.1 ll.10–13. A “spring metal adaptor” or “spring steel adaptor” surrounds the leading end of the electrical connector and attaches the connector to the junction box. Id. col.10 ll.28–38.Image 1 (4.08" X 4.66") Available for Offline Print

'050 patent fig. 5.

Figure 5 shows a typical electrical junction box (34) and a zinc die-cast connector (26). Id. col.3 ll.53–55. The spring steel adaptor (20) is shown detached from the connector but centered around the axis on which it will be guided into the connector. Id. col.3 ll.55–62. In this embodiment, the spring steel adaptor (20) fits on the smooth central section (32) of the electrical connector between a raised shoulder (30) and a flange (28). Id. After insertion into the electrical junction box (34), the outward-bent locking tangs (22) lock the connector into place. The outward-bent tensioner tangs (23) exert force on the exterior wall of the electrical junction box, keeping the connector under tension and firmly in place against the wall. Id. col.6 ll.5–17.

Claim 8 of the '050 patent states as follows:

8. A quick connect fitting for an electrical junction box comprising:

a hollow electrical connector through which an electrical conductor may be inserted having a leading end thereof for insertion in a hole in an electrical junction box;

a circular spring metal adaptor surrounding said leading end of said electrical connector which has a leading end, a trailing end, and an intermediate body; at least two outwardly sprung members carried by said metal adaptor near said trailing end of said adaptor which engage the side walls of the hole in the junction box into which said adaptor is inserted;

at least two spring locking members carried by said metal adaptor that spring inward to a retracted position to permit said adaptor and locking members to be inserted in a hole in an electrical junction box and spring outward to lock said electrical connector from being withdrawn through the hole; and

an arrangement on said connector for limiting the distance said connector can be inserted into the hole in the junction box.

Id. col.10 ll.28–53 (emphasis added).

Arlington's '831 patent discloses a duplex electrical connector having two openings to allow the insertion of two electrical cables through the connector into a single hole in the junction box. '831 patent col.1 ll.13–16. Figure 1 shows a blown apart view of one embodiment of the duplex connector. Id. col.2 ll.57–61. The spring steel adaptor (28) includes a slot (29) to permit expansion prior to being fitted over diameter (17) and a plurality of tangs (31) to prevent removal of the connector following insertion into the aperture of an electrical junction box. Id. col.4 ll.59–63.

Image 2 (4.5" X 3.01") Available for Offline Print

'831 patent fig.1.

Claim 1 of the '831 patent states as follows:

1. A duplex electrical connector comprising:

a) a housing having a cylindrical outbound end, a generally oval inbound end, and an interior channel linking said inbound and said outbound end;

b) a pair of parallel openings in said inbound end;

c) a tubular spring steel cable retainer secured in each of said openings in said inbound end for accepting separate cables, said retainers including a set of inwardly extending tangs to receive and engage said separate cables inserted from said inbound end and guide said separate cables toward said cylindrical outbound end in a manner that said separate cables are advanced to said outbound end, said inwardly extending tangs restricting removal of said separate cables by force applied on said separate cables from said inbound end; and

d) a tubular spring steel adapter secured to said cylindrical outbound end of said housing, said adapter having outwardly extending tangs.

Id. col.6 l.64–col.7. l.14 (emphasis added).

The '831 patent incorporates by reference U.S. Patent No. 6,080,933, col.4 ll.64–67, which in turn incorporates by reference U.S. Patent No. 5,373,106 (“the '106 patent”), col.4 ll.6–10. The '106 patent and '050 patent descend from the same parent, U.S. Patent No. 5,171,164 (“the '164 patent”).

B.

In Arlington I, filed approximately six months before Arlington II, Arlington alleged that certain Bridgeport Whipper–Snap products infringed claim 8 of the '050 patent. Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc., 692 F.Supp.2d 487, 497 (M.D.Pa.2010) (“ Arlington I ”). The Arlington I court declined to read a “split ring” limitation into the claims, finding that the meaning of the term, “an adaptor made of spring metal,” was clear in view of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. 2008 WL 542966, at *6. Following a ten-day trial, a jury thereafter returned a verdict in favor of Arlington against Bridgeport, finding infringement of claim 8 of the '050 patent with respect to thirty Whipper–Snap models. 692 F.Supp.2d at 523–24. By joint motion of the parties, this court stayed the Arlington I appeal pending disposition of the current appeal.

In the later-filed case, Arlington alleged that two other models of Bridgeport's Whipper–Snap connectors, both duplex connectors, infringed the ' 831 patent. Id. at 496. Arlington later amended its complaint to allege that these models also infringed the '050 patent. Id. Although infringement of the '050 patent was now an issue in both Arlington I and Arlington II, neither party moved to consolidate the cases, and the matters proceeded on parallel tracks. Id.

The Arlington II court construed “spring metal adaptor” to mean a split spring metal adaptor. 2007 WL 4276565, at *8. The court found that the split allows the adaptor to narrow upon insertion into the electrical junction box. Id. at *7 (“[A] necessary feature of the “spring” metal adaptor is that it is ‘split.’ Without the split, it would not spring.”). The Arlington II court construed “spring steel adapter” from the '831 patent as also requiring a split, stating that this term was subject to the same analysis. Id. at *15.

Bridgeport thereafter moved for summary judgment of non-infringement of the ' 050 and '831 patents. Arlington II, 615 F.Supp.2d at 337. In September 2008, the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement, non-willfulness, and no damages as to the '050 patent in favor of Bridgeport. Id. at 338. In May 2009, the district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement, non-willfulness, and no damages as to the '831 patent. Id. After denying Arlington's request for reconsideration, the district court entered final judgment on September 1, 2009.

Arlington thereafter appealed the Arlington II court's claim construction and entries of summary judgment. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

II.

A.

Claim construction is a question of law, which this court reviews without deference. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1456 (Fed.Ci...