Bestop, Inc. v. Tuffy Sec. Prods., Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 13-10759 |
| Parties | Bestop, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Tuffy Security Products, Inc., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds
This matter comes before the Court on the Special Master's Report and Recommendation regarding claim construction. The Special Master issued his report on December 4, 2014. (Dkt. 68.) Defendant filed its objections on December 15, 2014. (Dkt. 72.) Plaintiff does not object and filed a motion to adopt the report on December 15, 2014. (Dkt. 71.)1 The Special Master's Report and Recommendation has been reviewed de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53(f)(3), (f)(4). Because the Court finds that the Special Master appropriately constructed the claims, the Court ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS the Special Master's Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff accuses Defendant of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,065,794 (the '794 patent). The patent is titled "Security Enclosures for Open Deck Vehicles." "The patent generally relates to storage management devices, termed 'trunk enclosures,' that partition and establish a lockable storage trunk in the rear of convertible vehicles." (Report and Recommendation ¶ 2.)
The parties contest the construction of the term "means for securing" within the claims of the '794 patent. This term is found in independent claims 4, 5, and 16. Claim 4 is representative of the asserted claims.
(emphasis added).
The Special Master recommended that "means for securing" should be constructed as:
The first and second panels are attached in order to create a secured enclosure when the tailgate of the vehicle is closed. The two panels may be rigidly attached; or they may be rotatably attached using a hinge, in combination withat least one bolt lock, locking pin and bore, locking bar, or equivalent structure for holding the panels in a fixed position when the tailgate of the vehicle is closed.
(Report and Recommendation ¶ 7.)
In making this recommendation, the Special Master noted that the parties agree that the term "means for securing" is expressed in "means-plus-function" format. As a result, the construction of the term is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Construction of a "means-plus-function" limitation requires "identifying the claimed function and determining the corresponding structure or act disclosed in the specification." IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1430 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "When multiple embodiments in the specification correspond to the claimed function, proper application of § 112, ¶ 6 generally reads the claim element to embrace each of those embodiments." Versa Corp. v. Ag-Bag Int'l Ltd., 392 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2004)(quoting Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co., 194 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
The Special Master found four structures that correspond to the "means for securing" recited in the claims: (1) a "bolt lock," which is described as the "first embodiment;" (2) a "locking pin and bore," designated as the "second embodiment;" (3) a "locking bar," identified as the "third embodiment;" and (4) a "rigid attachment" between the two panels. The Special Master further noted that the patent explains that "more than a single securing means may be used in keeping with the claimed invention." (Report and Recommendation ¶ 7)
Defendant objects to the Special Master's inclusion of rigid attachment as a "means for securing the second panel in a position relative to the first panel . . . ." Defendant arguesthat the "means for securing" must be limited to a releasable lock mechanism (e.g., the bolt lock, locking pin and bore, or locking bar referred to in the specification).
Defendant's objections can generally be classified into two groups. The first group concerns the language of the claim. Defendant argues that the inclusion of rigid attachment as a "means for securing" results in a construction that: (1) is not in accord with the language of the claim; (2) is unclear and inconsistent with the claim; (3) ignores the claim's preamble; (4) ignores the fact that the mobility function is not a means for securing the panels; and (5) ignores the recitation of "wherein the deck sidewalls include wheel wells for supporting the second panel in a generally horizontal position . . . ." The second group concerns the prosecution history of the claim. Defendant argues that Plaintiff disavowed or disclaimed rigid attachment as a "means for securing" the two panels under the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer.
Although Defendant's first objection is comprised of five separate arguments, each is based essentially on the same premise. Defendant points out that the claims require both (1) "a second panel coupled to the second end of the first panel and extending therefrom toward the tailgate;" and (2) "a means for securing the second panel in a position relative to the first panel so that an enclosed space is defined. . . ." (emphasis added). Defendant argues that the Special Master's construction confuses these two functions. Defendant believes that the rigid attachment embodiment recited in the specification refers to an alternative way of "coupling" the two panels of the device to each other. It is not a "means of securing" the two panels.
Defendant is incorrect. Like the bolt lock, locking pin and bore, or locking bar described in the specification, a rigid attachment between the two panels is also "a means for securing the second panel in a position relative to the first panel so that an enclosed space is defined . . . ." Defendant's focus on the coupling requirement is misplaced. To "couple" one object to another is to connect, join, or fasten them together in some way. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary 521 (1986) (defining "couple" as "to fasten together"); Oxford English Dictionary, available at http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/43130 (accessed January 30, 2015) (defining "couple" as "to fasten or link together (properly in pairs); to join or connect in any way"). It is true that two panels that are rigidly attached are indeed "coupled" to one another. But this does not foreclose rigid attachment from being a "means for securing." The panels are coupled to one another whenever they are connected to each other, either by hinge or otherwise. That they are coupled though does not explain how they are secured in such a way that an "enclosed spaced is defined by the first and second panels, the tailgate, the load deck, and the deck sidewalls . . . ." The rigid attachment between the two panels is disclosed in the specification as a means to secure the panels in this way. It is not merely described as an alternative method to couple the two panels together.
Furthermore, this interpretation does not run afoul of the presumption "that the use of different terms 'connotes different meanings.' " Welker Bearing Co. v. PHD, Inc., 528 F. Supp. 2d 683, 698 (E.D. Mich. 2007) aff'd, 550 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2008)(quoting ...
To continue reading
Request your trial