Innova/Pure Water v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.

• Decision Date: 28 October 2003
• Docket Number: No. 8:99-cv-1781-T-23MAP.,8:99-cv-1781-T-23MAP.
• Citation: 289 F.Supp.2d 1347
• Parties: INNOVA/PURE WATER, INC., Plaintiff, v. SAFARI WATER FILTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a Safari Outdoor Products, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

289 F.Supp.2d 1347

INNOVA/PURE WATER, INC., Plaintiff, v.SAFARI WATER FILTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a Safari Outdoor Products, Defendant.

No. 8:99-cv-1781-T-23MAP.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.

October 28, 2003.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Frank R. Jakes, Johnson, Blakely, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, P.A., Tampa, FL, Robert A. Vanderhye, Nixon & Vanderhye, P.C., Arlington, VA, for Plaintiff.

C. Douglas McDonald, Jr., Nancy J. Faggianelli, Carlton Fields, P.A., Tampa, FL, James R. Ghiselli, Cynthia A. Mitchell, Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P., Boulder, CO, Gregory Eugene Mierzwinski, Law Office of Gregory E. Mierzwinski, Tampa, FL, for Defendant.

Terry Marcus Sanks, Beusse, Brownlee, Bowdoin & Wolter, P.A., Orlando, FL, for Movant.

ORDER

MERRYDAY, District Judge.

Innova/Pure Water, Inc.("Innova") alleges that Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc.'s ("Safari") water bottle filter product (the "product") infringes United States Patent 5,609,759 (the "'759 patent"), entitled "Bottle Filter Cap" and assigned to Innova (Doc. 1).¹The '759 patent discloses and claims a water bottle filter assembly comprising (1) a bottle cap, (2) a filter element, and (3) a manual valve.The filter assembly seals a bottle, filters chlorine and contaminants from drinking water upon inversion of the bottle, and allows water to pour through the valve.The '759 patent specification emphasizes the desirability of "a filtering assembly for use with standard plastic water bottles, which filter assembly has optimum portability, for example being capable of being carried in a pocket, purse, fanny pack, or the like."The accused Safari product also has a cap for sealing a bottle, a filter element for filtering chlorine and contaminants from drinking water upon inversion of the bottle, and a manual valve.The filter element of the Safari product has a horizontal, annular flange at its top end designed for resting on the mouth of the bottle (the circumference of the flange is slightly wider than the circumference of the bottle mouth) and for suspending the filter element in the neck of the bottle.Screwing fully the separate bottle cap, which has internal threads, onto the corresponding threads on the exterior of the bottle neck results in contact with and pressure on the filter element, thus fixing the filter element in position for its intended purpose.Pursuant to section 284 of title 35, United States Code, Innova seeks a reasonable royalty, trebled for intentional infringement.In addition, Innova seeks to enjoin Safari from continuing the alleged infringement.

Both parties move for summary judgment (Docs. 44 & 45).Innova asserts (1) literal infringement or, alternatively, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of independent claims 1 and 15 and dependent claims 5, 11, and 17 through 20 of the '759 patent and (2) validity of the '759 patent pursuant to sections 102and112 of title 35, United States Code(Doc. 44).Because no infringement of a dependent claim results absent infringement of the independent claim from which it depends, Innova's claim of infringement fails unless Safari infringes independent claims 1 and 15.SeeWolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Nike, Inc.,38 F.3d 1192, 1199(Fed.Cir.1994).Claims 1 and 15 of the '759 patent read as follows (with emphasis added):

1.A filter assembly for use with a bottle having a circular cross-section neck or open end to simultaneously cap the neck or open end and filter liquid poured out of the bottle through the neck or open end, comprising: a tube of filtering material ...; a cap for a bottle neck or end ... having first and second substantially opposite surfaces; a manual valve operatively associated with said cap ...; said tube operatively connected to said cap second surface at said tube second open end, and wherein said filtering material comprises a substantially continuous self-supporting, self-venting body of activated carbon and binder ....

...

15.A container for dispensing filtered water, comprising: a plastic bottle having an open neck ... with a cap engaging portion; a plastic cap having a bottle neck engaging portion ...; a self-supporting, self-venting tube of or containing filtering material ...; a manual valve operatively associated with said cap ...; said tube operatively connected to said cap second surface ....

Denying literal infringement of claims 1 and 15, Safari argues the absence of two claimed features.First, Safari contends that the "tube of or containing filtering material"(the "tube") in its product is not "operatively connected" to the "cap", as required by claims 1 and 15 (Doc. 48).²Rather, Safari argues that, because no connection exists between the cap and the tube in its product, no possibility exists for simultaneous removal of the cap and the tube from the bottle as a "unitary device."Second, Safari contends that its product lacks the "self-venting body of activated carbon and binder" of claim 1 and the "self-venting tube of or containing filtering material" of claim 15.Safari also denies infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and argues that prosecution history estoppel bars Innova's claim of infringement by equivalence.Safari asserts the same arguments of non-infringement in support of its motion for summary judgment(Doc. 45).No dispute exists concerning the feature of the accused product that allegedly is the "tube of or containing filtering material ... operatively connected ... to [the] cap."However, the parties dispute the operation of the feature of the accused product that allegedly is the "self-venting" filtering material of claim 1 and the "self-venting tube of or containing filtering material" of claim 15.

Separately, Safari moves to strike the declarations of John E. Nohren, Jr., and Paul M. Pederson submitted in support of Innova's motion for summary judgment(Doc. 51), and Innova moves for leave both to amend the complaint (Doc. 58) and to reply in further support of the request to amend(Doc. 60).Innova opposes Safari's motion to strike(Doc. 53), and Safari opposes Innova's motions for leave to amend(Doc. 59) and for leave to reply (Doc. 62).

Determining patent infringement requires two steps.Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc.,90 F.3d 1576, 1581-82(Fed.Cir.1996);Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,52 F.3d 967, 976(Fed.Cir.1995)(en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577(1996).First, as a matter of law, the court construes the asserted claims and determines their scope.SeeVitronics,90 F.3d at 1582;Markman,52 F.3d at 970 & 976.Second, on summary judgment, the court compares the construed claims to the accused product.SeeVitronics,90 F.3d at 1581-82;Markman,52 F.3d at 976.

I.CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

"[C]laim language must be construed as a whole and it is something of an intellectual fiction to separate the phrases of a claim as if they stood in isolation."BOC Health Care, Inc. v. Nellcor, Inc.,892 F.Supp. 598, 613(D.Del.1995);seeSRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am.,775 F.2d 1107, 1121(Fed.Cir.1985)(en banc)."[T]he focus in construing disputed terms in claim language ... is on the objective test of what one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood the term to mean."Markman,52 F.3d at 986.³The ordinary and customary meaning of claim terms governs claim construction.SeeDayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc.,258 F.3d 1317, 1327(Fed.Cir.2001);K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A.,191 F.3d 1356, 1362-63(Fed.Cir.1999).⁴Adding limitations neither required by claim terms nor unambiguously required by either the specification or the prosecution history of a patent is impermissible.SeeDayco Prods.,258 F.3d at 1327;K-2,191 F.3d at 1362-63.

Two categories of evidence assist with claim construction.The first category, intrinsic evidence, includes the patent claims, specification, and prosecution history.Vitronics,90 F.3d at 1582.Intrinsic evidence "is the most significant source of the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language."Vitronics,90 F.3d at 1582.The second category, extrinsic evidence, or evidence that is external to the patent and file history, includes expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and technical treatises and articles.Vitronics,90 F.3d at 1584."Extrinsic evidence is to be used for the court's understanding of the patent, not for the purpose of varying or contradicting the terms of the claims."Markman,52 F.3d at 981 & 986.When interpreting an asserted claim "the court should look first to the intrinsic evidence of record."Vitronics,90 F.3d at 1582.Within this category of evidence, the court first "look[s] to the words of the claims themselves, both asserted and nonasserted, to define the scope of the patented invention."Vitronics,90 F.3d at 1582.The court next reviews the specification.Vitronics,90 F.3d at 1582."Claims must be read in view of the specification....Usually, [the specification] ... is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term."Vitronics,90 F.3d at 1582-83(quotations omitted)("The specification acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication.");Markman,52 F.3d at 979("For claim construction purposes, the description may act as a sort of dictionary which explains the invention and may define terms used in the claims.").Although the ordinary and customary meaning of a disputed claim term is presumed correct, a different meaning "clearly and deliberately set forth in the intrinsic evidence will control."SeeK-2,191 F.3d at 1362-63;Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co.,54 F.3d 1570, 1576(Fed.Cir.1995).⁵The court last considers the prosecution history of the patent.Vitronics,90 F.3d at 1582;Markman,52 F.3d at 980."The prosecution history limits the interpretation of claim terms so as to exclude...