Jvi, Inc. v. Universal Holdings, Inc., 05 C 5385.
| Decision Date | 29 November 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 05 C 5385.,05 C 5385. |
| Citation | 464 F.Supp.2d 758 |
| Parties | JVI, INC., an Illinois Corporation, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL HOLDINGS, INC., an Illinois Corporation, d/b/a Universal Form Clamp; Inn Connect LLC, a Florida Liability Company; and Ratec LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Edward H. Rice, Leah Rachel Bruno, Marina N. Saito, Michael B. Sachs, Steven M. Lubezny, Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.
Jeffrey Stephen Ward, Lathrop & Clark, Madison, WI, Christopher R. Parker, Michael Best & Friedrich, Karl Regan Fink, Meghan Ronayne Rooney, Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.
Plaintiff JVI, Inc. (hereinafter, "JVI") alleges that Defendants' Universal Holdings and Ratec LLC, (hereinafter collectively, "Universal") are infringing United States Patent No. 6,185,897 ("the '897 Patent"). Before the Court are JVI's and Universal's Markman briefs for claim construction as to the meaning and scope of several disputed claims of the '897 Patent.
Precast concrete is widely used throughout the building industry. It typically forms structures within buildings and bridges, including columns, beams, floors, and walls. Precast concrete members include a common and widely applied element, known as a "double tee" design. The double tee concrete member generally has a load-bearing surface and includes two overhanging edges, known as flanges, and two joists or supports. The concrete is formed with a reinforced mesh embedded into the center of the slab. The double tee members are laid side by side so that the flanged edges abut each other. The flange connectors, historically made of a faceplate and a pair of extending legs at approximately 45 degree angles, are then welded together.
JVI invented an improved flange connector design in order to avoid problems generated by the welding of the connectors. One problem was that when the connectors were welded, the heat caused the faceplates on the flange connectors to expand. When the faceplates expanded, their legs shifted causing cracks in the concrete.
Another problem with the conventional faceplates was their inability to compensate adequately for vertical shear forces in both upward and downward directions because both legs were positioned either above or below the reinforced mesh. If the legs were placed above the reinforced mesh, upward forces could force the flange connector to break out of the concrete. In order to absorb shear forces in both downward and upward directions, under JVI's patent, one leg of the flange connector may be placed below the reinforced mesh while the other leg is placed above it.
Claim construction is a matter of law reserved for the Court. See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996). "[O]nly those terms need to be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy." Vivid Techs., Inc. v. American Science & Engineering, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 804 (Fed.Cir.1999). Claims are "construed without regard to the accused product," and are interpreted through the lens of a "person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention." See Jurgens v. McKasy, 927 F.2d 1552, 1560 (Fed.Cir.1991); Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd. 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed.Cir.1998).
To ascertain the meaning of a patent claim, the Court looks first to the intrinsic evidence, which consists of the language of the claim, the specification, and if in evidence, the prosecution history. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996). "Words in a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning." Id. However, "a patentee may choose to be his own lexicographer and use terms in a manner other than their ordinary meaning, as long as the special definition of the term is clearly stated in the patent specification or file history." Id. Thus, because "[t]he specification acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication," it "is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis." Id. "Usually, it is dispositive and the single best guide to the meaning of the disputed term." Id.
As a preliminary matter, the parties' initial briefs included discussion of certain phrases from claims that the parties anticipated would be challenged by their opponent. As it turns out, some of the claim phrases raised in the opening briefs were not contested, and thus the Court will address only those phrases included in the parties' responsive briefs.
The '897 Patent contains nine claims. Claims 1 and 6 are independent. All of the disputed terms arise in Claims 1 and 6.
A flange connector comprising:
a central faceplate, said faceplate having a longitudinal axis;
a first and second opposing faceplate return, each said faceplate return extending from said central faceplate at approximately ninety degree (90°) angles from said faceplate;
a first and second flattening bend, said first flattening bend extending from said first opposing faceplate return and said second flattening bend extending from said second faceplate return;
a first and second embedded leg, said first embedded leg extending from said first flattening bend and said second embedded leg extending from said second flattening bend, each said embedded leg being positioned in a plan substantially perpendicular to said faceplate and substantially parallel to said longitudinal axis of said faceplate, said flattening bends angled between said faceplate return and said embedded legs to enable said embedded legs to be positioned in the plane and to allow said flange connector to flex under shear and tension forces.
JVI argues that the phrase should be interpreted as "two faceplate returns extending from opposite ends of the faceplate, each of the faceplate returns forming an angle of approximately 90° degrees with the faceplate." Universal originally argued that the phrase requires two limitations: (1) opposing faceplate returns that extend from the central faceplate, which returns are a different structure than the flattening bends/embedded legs; and (2) that the opposing faceplate returns extend from the central faceplate at approximately a 90° degree angle from the faceplate, where the angle is the outer angle formed between the faceplate and the return. Contrary to Universal's original assertions regarding a different structure, the '897 patent refers to a "onepiece" steel member. The Court need not address this argument, however, because Universal abandons it in its Response stating that the returns are simply separate elements.
Therefore, the dispute is whether the 90° degree angle is the outer angle formed between the faceplate and the return. JVI argues that the claim does not mention inner or outer angles. Likewise, neither the specification nor the prosecution history mentions inner or outer angles. Universal argues that since the claimed angle is formed between the faceplate and each return, it must be either the inner angle or the outer angle between the two claim elements. Since the angle is 90° whether one measures the inner or outer angles, there does not appear to be a real disagreement on this phrase of the claim. Thus, the Court accepts JVI's definition because it is more in line with the plain meaning of the claim's words.
JVI's proposed construction is: first and second flattening bends that extend from the opposing faceplate returns. Universal proposes the phrase should be interpreted to require (1) that the flattening bends extend from opposing faceplates returns and (2) that the first flattening bend extends from the upper portion of the first faceplate return, and the second flattening bend extends from the lower portion of the second faceplate return.
In support of its proposed construction, Universal argues that throughout the specification, including the abstract, the figures, the summary of the invention and description of the preferred embodiment, only one description of the invention is given. That description is a configuration where one flattening bend extends from the upper portion of a faceplate return and the other flattening bend extends from the lower portion of the opposing faceplate return. Additionally, the specification refers to the configuration as the "present invention." In the specification, the inventor also distinguished the invention from other faceplates where both legs are either upward to downward. '897 Patent, Col.2, 11. 19-27. Thus, Universal argues, the configuration is not the preferred embodiment, but the only embodiment. See Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. ITT Industries, Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1318 (Fed.Cir.2006).
JVI argues that Universal attempts to impermissibly import a limitation from the specification into the claims. It does not dispute that the preferred embodiment described in the '897 patent has one flattening bend that extends upward and one that extends downward. However, JVI argues that the preferred embodiment is merely one way to practice the invention. Further, JVI argues, the language of Claim 4 proves that such a limitation should not be imputed to Claim 1. Claim 4 is expressly limited to flange connectors in which one of the flattening bends extends from the upper portion of the return and the other extends from the lower...
To continue reading
Request your trial