Parker Compound Bows, Inc. v. Hunter's Mfg. Co.

• Decision Date: 12 February 2016
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 5:14cv00004
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
• Parties: PARKER COMPOUND BOWS, INC., Plaintiff, v. HUNTER'S MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., d/b/a TENPOINT CROSSBOW TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant.

PARKER COMPOUND BOWS, INC., Plaintiff, v. HUNTER'S MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.,d/b/a TENPOINT CROSSBOW TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 5:14cv00004

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA HARRISONBURG DIVISION

February 12, 2016

By: Michael F. Urbanski United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Parker Compound Bows, Inc. brings this declaratory judgment action against defendant Hunter's Manufacturing Company, Inc. d/b/a TenPoint Crossbow Technologies ("TenPoint"),¹ seeking a declaration that Parker's crossbows do not infringe certain of TenPoint's patents and that TenPoint's patents are invalid. TenPoint counterclaims, alleging infringement of five patents in the same patent family describing certain aspects of a narrow crossbow with a large power stroke. This matter is currently before the court for claim construction pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The issues have been thoroughly briefed and argued and are ripe for adjudication.

I.

TenPoint is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,191,541 (the "'541 Patent"); U.S. Patent No. 8,439,025 (the "'025 Patent"); U.S. Patent No. 8,469,012 (the "'012 Patent"); U.S. Patent No. 8,479,719 (the "'719 Patent"); and U.S. Patent No. 8,763,595 (the "'595 Patent"), all of which are titled "Narrow Crossbow with Large Power Stroke." These patents describe largely the same subject matter and share similar illustrations, abstracts, backgrounds and written descriptions, butvary in claim scope.²

Crossbows, used for hunting and fishing and target shooting, generally have certain features, according to the patents-in-suit. One such feature is a bow assembly mounted to the main beam, comprised of a bow and bowstring used to shoot arrows. A trigger mechanism, also mounted to the main beam, holds the bowstring in a cocked position. Certain crossbows called compound bows have wheels at the opposite ends of the bow that receive the bowstring. The distance between these wheels when the crossbow is in an uncocked position is called the wheel distance. The power stroke of a crossbow is the linear distance along the main beam that the bowstring moves between the uncocked and cocked condition. Large power strokes—in the range of 16, 17, or 18 inches—are desired, as they provide the potential for more speed and energy. But previous crossbows touting large power strokes came with several disadvantages, such as difficulty cocking and a width that reduces maneuverability. The patents-in-suit claim improvement over the prior art by creating a narrow crossbow with a large powerstroke that is more compact and maneuverable and easy to manually cock. The illustration appearing on the first page of each of the patents-in-suit is representative:

Image materials not available for display.

The '541 Patent, '025 Patent, '012 Patent, and '595 Patent claim crossbows having certain dimensional claims (e.g., bow limb lengths, distances between wheels, power distances and ratios of wheel distances to power distances) and certain power claims (e.g., draw weights and stored energy amounts). The claims of the '719 Claim are directed to a foot stirrup, an element that aids a user in cocking the crossbow.

TenPoint asserts this new crossbow has revolutionized the industry leading many manufacturers, including Parker, to copy TenPoint's patented invention. Parker insists TenPoint seeks to monopolize the practice of every crossbow fitting within the claimed dimensions of the patents-in-suit.

A number of claim terms are in dispute.

II.

The first step in a patent infringement case is to construe the meaning and scope of the patent claims at issue. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Claim construction is a matter of law exclusively for the court. Id. at 977-79: see also O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("When the parties raise an actual dispute regarding the proper scope of these claims, the court, not the jury, must resolve that dispute." (citing Markman, 52 F.3d at 979)).

"'To ascertain the meaning of claims, we consider three sources: The claims, the specification, and the prosecution history.'" Markman, 52 F.3d at 979 (quoting Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). "Such intrinsic evidence is the most significant source of the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language." Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

First, the court must look to the words of the claims themselves. The claim terms "'are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,'" that is, "the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). "The inquiry into how a person of ordinary skill in the art understands a claim term provides an objective baseline from which to begin claim interpretation." Id. at 1313 (citing Innova/PureWater, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). "In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words." Id. at 1314 (citing Brown v. 3M, 365 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).

The claims, however, do not stand alone and must be read "'in view of the specification, of which they are a part.'" Id. at 1315 (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 979). A person of ordinary skill in the art "is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification." Id. at 1313. "[T]t is always necessary to review the specification to determine whether the inventor has used any terms in a manner inconsistent with their ordinary meaning. The specification acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication." Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1582 (citing Markman, 52 F.3d at 979). "[T]hespecification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor's lexicography governs." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Thus, the specification is "always highly relevant" to the analysis. Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1582. "Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." Id.

Additionally, the court must consider the prosecution history, which contains "the complete record of all the proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office [("PTO")], including any express representations made by the applicant regarding the scope of the claims," id., as well as "the prior art cited during the examination of the patent," Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (citing Autogiro Co. of Am. v. United States, 181 Ct. Cl. 55, 384 F.2d 391, 399 (1967)). "Like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (citing Lemelson v. Gen Mills, Inc., 968 F.2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).

The claims, specification and prosecution history "constitute the public record of the patentee's claim," and, generally, "an analysis of th[is] intrinsic evidence alone will resolve any ambiguity in a disputed claim term." Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1583. However, the court may, in its discretion, look to extrinsic evidence, "'including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises,'" Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 980), in order "'to aid the court in coming to a correct conclusion' as to the 'true meaning of the language employed' in the patent." Markman, 52 F.3d at 980 (quoting Seymour v. Osborne, 78 U.S. 516, 546 (1871)). Although it is "less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language," Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (citations omitted), extrinsic evidence "may be helpful to explain scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and terms of art that appear in the patent and prosecution history." Markman, 52 F.3d at 980. "Extrinsic evidence is to be used for thecourt's understanding of the patent, not for the purpose of varying or contradicting the terms of the claims." Id. at 981. It "is not for the purpose of clarifying ambiguity in claim terminology." Id. at 986.

III.

The principal claim construction question to be resolved in this case is a narrow one: whether the "bow limb," also referred to in the plural as "bow limbs," referenced throughout the patents-in-suit has a thickness that varies continuously from the first end to the hinge point. Both parties agree the term has a specific meaning that must be interpreted in light of the written specification common to this family of patents. They further agree that its definition must be framed in terms of limb thickness—specifically, that a bow limb has a varying thickness from the first end to the hinge point. The parties' dispute over the proper construction of this claim term is limited to whether that thickness must vary continuously along the length from the first end to the hinge point.

Both parties direct the court to the following passage from the specification:

With reference now to FIGS. 1-6, a limb design according to one embodiment of this invention will now be described. Each limb 36 has a first end 60 that is received within the corresponding pocket 42 and a second end 62 that is

...