Jumpsport, Inc. v. Acad., Ltd.

• Decision Date: 28 August 2018
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 6:17-cv-645-RWS-JDL,CASE NO. 6:17-cv-414-RWS-JDL (LEAD CONSOLIDATED CASE),CASE NO. 6:17-cv-663-RWS-JDL,CASE NO. 6:17-cv-666-RWS-JDL
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
• Parties: JUMPSPORT, INC. Plaintiff, v. ACADEMY, LTD d/b/a ACADEMY SPORTS & OUTDOORS; WAL-MART STORES, INC., et al.; DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., et al.; and AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Defendants.

JUMPSPORT, INC. Plaintiff, v. ACADEMY, LTD d/b/a ACADEMY SPORTS & OUTDOORS;WAL-MART STORES, INC., et al.;DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., et al.; andAMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. 6:17-cv-414-RWS-JDL (LEAD CONSOLIDATED CASE)

CASE NO. 6:17-cv-645-RWS-JDL

CASE NO. 6:17-cv-663-RWS-JDL

CASE NO. 6:17-cv-666-RWS-JDL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

August 28, 2018

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This claim construction opinion construes the disputed claim terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,053,845 ("the '845 Patent") and 6,261,207 ("the '207 Patent"). Plaintiff JumpSport, Inc. ("JumpSport" or "Plaintiff") alleges Defendants Academy, Ltd., d/b/a Academy Sports + Outdoors; Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com LLC; Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc.; American Sports Licensing, LLC, f/k/a American Sports Licensing, Inc.; Dick's Merchandising & Supply Chain, Inc.; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.¹; Wal-Mart Stores East, LP; Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC; Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC; Sam's East, Inc.; and Sam's West, Inc. (collectively referred to as "Defendants") infringe the '845 and '207 Patents. Plaintiff filed an opening claim construction brief (Doc. No. 138), to which Defendants filed a responsive brief (Doc. No. 146), and Plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. No. 155). The Parties additionally submitted a Joint Claim Construction Chart pursuant to P.R. 4-5(d). (Doc. No. 157.) On August 16, 2018, the Court held a claim constructionhearing. Upon consideration of the Parties' arguments, and for the reasons stated herein, the Court adopts the constructions set forth below.

OVERVIEW OF THE PATENTS

Plaintiff claims that Defendants, various retailers, sell trampolines that directly infringe or induce infringement by consumers of claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 17 of the '845 Patent and claims 9, 12, 17, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, and 34 of the '207 Patent. The '207 Patent is a continuation of the '845 Patent and they share substantially the same specification. Both Patents are entitled "Trampoline or the Like with Enclosure." The disclosure of both Patents is generally directed to the wall structure of a trampoline enclosure. '845 Patent at 1:14-20. More specifically, the Patents are directed toward a safety fence connected to resilient, rather than rigid, poles designed to absorb the energy of a jumper's impact and propel the jumper back toward the center of the trampoline. '845 Patent at 1:48-59. These concepts are reflected in the Patents' asserted claims, and independent claim 1 of the '845 Patent is set forth below for reference:

1. A trampoline having a safety enclosure therearound, comprising:

a frame;

a rebounding mat coupled to the frame by plural spring members;

plural independent poles, each extending above the rebounding mat;

the safety enclosure comprising a flexible material coupled to said independent poles and to the rebounding mat;

wherein the coupling of the safety enclosure to both the independent poles and to the rebounding mat helps in absorption of impact forces to the safety enclosure.

'845 Patent at 20:27-40.

There are six disputed terms or phrases in the asserted claims.

LEGAL STANDARD

"It is a 'bedrock principle' of patent law that 'the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The Court examines a patent's intrinsic evidence to define the patented invention's scope. Id. at 1313-14; Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc'ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Intrinsic evidence includes the claims, the rest of the specification and the prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13; Bell Atl. Network Servs., 262 F.3d at 1267. The Court gives claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Claim language guides the Court's construction of claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. "[T]he context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive." Id. Other claims, asserted and unasserted, can provide additional instruction because "terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent." Id. Differences among claims, such as additional limitations in dependent claims, can provide further guidance. Id.

"[C]laims 'must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.'" Id. (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). "[T]he specification 'is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.'" Id. (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); Teleflex. Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In the specification, a patentee may define his own terms, give a claim term a different meaning than it would otherwise possess, ordisclaim or disavow some claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. Although the Court generally presumes terms possess their ordinary meaning, this presumption can be overcome by statements of clear disclaimer. See SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This presumption does not arise when the patentee acts as his own lexicographer. See Irdeto Access, Inc. v. EchoStar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The specification may also resolve ambiguous claim terms "where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alone." Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at 1325. For example, "[a] claim interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from the scope of the claim 'is rarely, if ever, correct." Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elam Computer Group Inc., 362 F.3d 1367, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1583). But, "[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed language in the claims, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the claims." Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.

The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim construction because a patentee may define a term during prosecution of the patent. Home Diagnostics Inc. v. LifeScan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("As in the case of the specification, a patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent."). The well-established doctrine of prosecution disclaimer "preclud[es] patentees from recapturing through claim interpretation specific meanings disclaimed during prosecution." Omega Eng'g Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The prosecution history must show that thepatentee clearly and unambiguously disclaimed or disavowed the proposed interpretation during prosecution to obtain claim allowance. Middleton Inc. v. 3M Co., 311 F.3d 1384, 1388 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Indus., L.P., 323 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The disclaimer . . . must be effected with 'reasonable clarity and deliberateness.'") (citations omitted)). "Indeed, by distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, an applicant is indicating what the claims do not cover." Spectrum Int'l v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d 1372, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted). "As a basic principle of claim interpretation, prosecution disclaimer promotes the public notice function of the intrinsic evidence and protects the public's reliance on definitive statements made during prosecution." Omega Eng'g, Inc., 334 F.3d at 1324.

Although "less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language," the Court may rely on extrinsic evidence to "shed useful light on the relevant art." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quotation omitted). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help the Court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use claim terms, but such sources may also provide overly broad definitions or may not be indicative of how terms are used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert testimony may aid the Court in determining the particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but "conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful." Id. Generally, extrinsic evidence is "less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms." Id.

In patent construction, "subsidiary fact finding is sometimes necessary" and the court "may have to make 'credibility judgments' about witnesses." Teva v. Sandoz, 135 S. Ct. 831, 838 (2015). In some cases, "the district court will need to look beyond the patent's intrinsic evidenceand to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period." Id. at 841. "If a district court resolves a dispute between experts and makes a factual finding that, in general, a certain term of art had a particular meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, the district court must then conduct a legal analysis: whether a skilled artisan would ascribe that same meaning to that term in the context of the specific patent claim under review." Id. (emphasis in original). When the court makes subsidiary factual findings about the extrinsic evidence in consideration of the ...