Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 April 2017
• Docket Number: Case No. 16 C 6097
• Parties: THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES CO., LTD., TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES NORTH AMERICA, INC., ONE WORLD TECHNOLOGIES, INC., OWT INDUSTRIES, INC., ET TECHNOLOGY (WUXI) CO. LTD., and RYOBI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, v. TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES CO., LTD., TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES NORTH AMERICA, INC.,ONE WORLD TECHNOLOGIES, INC., OWT INDUSTRIES, INC., ET TECHNOLOGY (WUXI) CO. LTD.,and RYOBI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants.

Case No. 16 C 6097

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHER DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

April 7, 2017

Judge Harry D. Leinenweber

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Chamberlain Group, Inc. ("Chamberlain") alleges in this suit that Defendants Techtronic Industries Co., Ltd., Techtronic Industries North America, Inc., One World Technologies, Inc., OWT Industries, Inc., Et Technology (WUXI) Co. Ltd., and Ryobi Technologies (collectively, the "Defendants") infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,224,275 ("the '275 patent") and 7,635,966 ("the '966 patent"), both of which it owns. The parties dispute the construction of eleven terms that appear throughout the claims of the asserted patents; they have briefed those disputes pursuant to Local Rule 4.2. This opinion sets forth the Court's construction of the contested claim language.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The '275 Patent

1. The Invention, Disputed Terms, and Asserted Claims

The '275 patent, titled "Movable Barrier Operators Status Condition Transception Apparatus and Method," recites a moveable barrier operator, such as a garage door opener ("GDO"), featuring a wireless status condition data transmitter that wirelessly relays status condition messages to one or more remote devices. The asserted claims of the '275 patent, with the six disputed terms in italics, are produced in full below. (Chamberlain is no longer asserting claims 2 or 21 against Defendants. (See, ECF No. 172 ("Pl.'s Opp. Br.") at 21; ECF No. 156; ECF No. 191 at 4.))

 Claim Term Text  1  1 A movable barrier operator comprising:  1[a]  2 a controller having a plurality of potentialoperational status conditions defined, atleast in part, by a plurality of operatingstates;  1[b]   a movable barrier interface that is operablycoupled to the controller;  1[c]  3  a wireless status condition data transmitterthat is operably coupled to the controller,wherein the wireless status condition datatransmitter transmits a status conditionsignal that:  1[c.i]  3 corresponds to a present operational statuscondition defined, at least in part, by atleast two operating states from the pluralityof operating states; 

 Claim Term Text  1[c.ii]  4  and comprises an identifier that is at leastrelatively unique to the movable barrieroperator, such that the status conditionsignal substantially uniquely identifies themovable barrier operator.  14  -  A method comprising:  14[a]  -  at a movable barrier operator:  14[a.i]  5 detecting at least one predetermined conditionas corresponds to a present operational statusdefined, at least in part, by at least twooperating states, of the movable barrieroperator;  14[a.ii]  3  in response to detecting the at least onepredetermined condition, automaticallywirelessly transmitting a status conditionsignal that:  14[a.ii.1]  3 represents the present operational statusdefined, at least in part, by the at least twooperating states; and  14[a.ii.2]   comprises an identifier that is at leastrelatively unique to the movable barrieroperator, such that the status conditionsignal substantially uniquely identifies themovable barrier operator.  24  -  An apparatus comprising:  24[a]  -  a movable barrier operator having:  24[a.i]  2 a controller having a plurality of potentialoperational status conditions defined, atleast in part, by a plurality of operatingstates; and  24[a.ii]  3  a wireless status condition transmitteroperably coupled to the controller, whereinthe wireless status condition data transmittertransmits a status condition signal that:  24[a.ii.1]  3 corresponds to a present operational statuscondition defined, at least in part, by atleast two operating states from the pluralityof operating states; and 

 Claim Term Text  24[a.ii.2]   comprises an identifier that is at leastrelatively unique to the movable barrieroperator, such that the status conditionsignal substantially uniquely identifies themovable barrier operator;  24[b]  6  a remote peripheral having:  24[b.i]   a wireless receiver that is communicativelycompatible with the wireless transmitter;  24[b.ii]   a peripheral controller that is operablycoupled to the wireless receiver. 

The specification of the '275 patent credits existing technology with providing "a motor or other motion-imparting mechanism" to move a barrier, which motor is typically controlled by a "movable barrier operator." ('275 patent at 1:21-25.) Users control these operators either "by indicating a selection via one or more control surfaces that are physically associated with the movable barrier operator" or "by the transmission of a wireless remote control signal to the movable barrier operator." (Id. at 1:25-30.) At the time of the '275 patent application, the capabilities of commercially available operators had expanded "to include actions other than merely opening and closing a corresponding movable barrier," including providing ambient lighting, sensing the presence of an obstacle in the path of the barrier, and facilitating different control strategies (such as vacation mode). (Id. at 1:31-47.)

The specification notes, however, that prior art movable barrier operators are often partially or wholly inadequate to suit present or developing needs of a given user or setting. For example, movable barrier operators manufactured with the ability to support a wide range of functionality require a physical interface to support "numerous potentially utilized peripheral devices (including but not limited to sensors, control surfaces, alarms, displays, ambient and/or spot lighting, and so forth)." ('275 patent at 1:48-60.) This physical interface can entail undesired additional cost when part of the interface goes unused in a given installation. Furthermore, even if all potentially supported peripherals are used, the physical installation itself often includes "a physical signaling path to couple the movable barrier operator to the various peripherals," which can "result in undesired exposed wiring and/or an undesired increase in installation time." (Id. at 1:64-2:3.) The specification ascribes a final shortcoming to existing devices: a tendency to "fail to permit compatible support of a given peripheral," which can thwart a user who wishes, for example, to support a relatively new function "not specifically supported by a given movable barrier operator." (Id. at 2:4-16.)

The '275 patent (says that it) solves these problems by incorporating into extant technology "a controller having a plurality of potential operational status conditions, a movable barrier interface that operably couples to the controller, and a wireless status condition data transmitter that is operably coupled to the controller as well." ('275 patent at 2:56-61.) In the preferred embodiment, the wireless status condition data transmitter relays a status condition signal corresponding to at least one of the potential operational status conditions, and a remote peripheral (such as a display, an alarm, or a lighting control unit) can receive and process this status condition information. (Id. at 2:56-3:9.) First, this invention gives a user the ability to set a movable barrier operator to transmit a wide variety of wireless messages containing information that "can then be utilized to compatibly support a wide range of presently desired and later-developed features and functionality." (Id. at 3:16-20.) Second, "the overall cost of a given platform can be reduced as the need to over-design a physical peripheral interface becomes diminished." (Id. at 3:20-23.) Finally, this platform "has an improved opportunity to remain compatible with evolving features and legal and/or regulatory requirements to thereby promote a longer useful service life." (Id. at 3:23-26.)

2. Procedural Background

After an extensive hearing, the Court granted Chamberlain's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and, on September 20, 2016, entered an order (the "PI Order") prohibiting Defendants from further making, using, selling, or offering to sell in the United States or importing into the United States any of their Ryobi GD200 garage door openers likely to infringe claims 1 and 5 of the '275 patent. Defendants appealed this decision to the Federal Circuit, arguing that the Court improperly construed claim 1 to require a self-aware controller - that is, a controller that does not rely upon any external sensors to obtain status conditions. The Federal Circuit agreed with Defendants and vacated the PI order, holding in relevant part:

Claim 1 neither recites nor requires a 'self-aware controller.' The written description of the '275 patent makes clear that the controller can obtain the operational status conditions through self-awareness or through externally-developed information, e.g., sensors.

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries North America et al., No. 2016-2713, slip op. at 9 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 25, 2017). Both the language of claims 1 and 2 as well as the written description of the '275 patent contemplate self-aware controllers and controllers that rely on sensors. Id. at 10. The Federal Circuit rejected Chamberlain's argument that "the use of the terms 'having' and 'potential' in claim 1 demonstrate[sic] that the claim is directed to a self-aware controller." Id. at 11. It also found that the prosecution history of the '275 patent does not support Chamberlain's argument that sensor-based prior art was overcome during prosecution. Id. at 11. The Federal Circuit's findings are binding on this Court.

With the Federal Circuit decision in hand, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the "PTAB") denied Defendants' two petitions to institute inter partes review of the '275 patent. In those two decisions, the PTAB construed several of the claims at issue here. First, the PTAB construed "contro...