Power-one Inc v. Artesyn Technologies Inc

• Decision Date: 30 March 2010
• Docket Number: No. 2008-1507,No. 2008-1501,2008-1501,2008-1507
• Parties: POWER-ONE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARTESYN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit

599 F.3d 1343

POWER-ONE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARTESYN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2008-1501

No. 2008-1507

United States Court of Appeals Federal Circuit.

Decided: March 30, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Alan D. Smith, Fish & Richardson P.C. of Boston, MA, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were Steven R Katz, Whitney A. Fellberg and Thomas A Brown. Of counsel was Matthew J. Leary.

Robert J. McAughan, Jr., Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP, of Houston, TX argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Jeffrey A. Andrews and Christopher B. Dove.

Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, GAJARSA, Circuit Judge, and KENDALL, District Judge.^*

KENDALL, District Judge.

Power-One, Inc. ("Power-One") sued Artesyn Technologies, Inc. ("Artesyn") for infringement of its U.S. Patents Nos 7, 000, 125 (the "'125 patent"), 6, 936, 999 (the "'999 patent"), 6, 949, 916 (the "'916 patent") and 7, 049, 798 (the "'798 patent"), which relate to power supply systems for controlling, programming and monitoring point-of-load regulators ("POL regulators").¹ After a jury trial, the district court entered a permanent injunction and issued a final judgment and then an amended final judgment, based on the jury's verdict that Artesyn: 1) directly infringed claims 1, 6. 15-17, 23, and 30 of the '125 patent, and 2) failed to prove that any of the asserted claims of the '125 patent were invalid.² Artesyn appeals, asserting that the district court's claim construction of the term "POL regulator" was inadequate to fully describe the scope of the claims and that the district court erred in denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL") that the '125 patent was invalid as obvious. Because we find no error regarding any of the issues presented on appeal, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Power-One sells power supply systems that use regulators to supply power to components and devices in an electronic system. A regulator is a power supply that receives input power at one level and provides regulated output power at a different level. The devices being powered by a regulator are referred to as "loads."

In a distributed power system, which employs multiple regulators, an initial controller, known as a "bus, " is used to communicate information. The bus provides a common output voltage or current to the various regulators of the system, which in turn provide their own specified voltage or current to downstream components. The bus also acts to program, control and monitor the regulators.

In general, there are two types of power system buses: serial and parallel. A serial bus sends information to the regulators along a single communication pathway.from one item to another. A parallel bus, by contrast, utilizes multiple communication paths, sending out parallel information streams.

Three of the asserted claims at issue in the '125 patent are independent claims. Independent claims 1 and 16 of the '125 patent are directed to a power control system that includes a plurality of POL regulators connected to a "system controller" by a serial data bus. Specifically, Claim 1 states:

A power control system comprising: a plurality of point-of-load (POL) regulators; at least one serial data bus operatively connecting said plurality of POL regulators; and a system controller connected to said at least one serial data bus and adapted to send and receive digital data to and from said plurality of POL regulators; wherein, programming, control and monitoring information is carried on said at least one serial data bus between said system controller and said plurality of POL regulators.

Independent claim 16 recites:

A method of controlling a plurality of point-of-load (POL) regulators, comprising: receiving programming parameters; transmitting serially over a common data bus operably connected to said plurality of POL regulators digital programming data based on said programming parameters; and receiving performance monitoring information from said plurality of POL regulators over said common data bus.

Independent claim 23 is directed to a POL regulator that includes a power conversion circuit, a controller, and a serial bus interface for communicating programming and monitoring information. Claim 23 recites:

A point-of-load regulator comprising: a power conversion circuit adapted to convert an intermediate voltage to an output voltage; a serial data bus interface adapted to communicate programming and monitoring information to and from an external serial data bus connected thereto; and a controller connected to said serial data bus interface and said power conversion circuit, said controller being adapted to determine operating parameters for said power conversion circuit responsive to said programming information and generate said monitoring information responsive to operational characteristics of said power conversion circuit.

The term POL regulator is not defined in the '125 patent and after a Markman hearing was held, the district court rejected Artesyn's argument that the term was indefinite and construed it to mean:

[A] dc/dc switching voltage regulator designed to receive power from a voltage bus on a printed circuit board and adapted to power a portion of the devices on the board and to be placed near the one or more devices being powered as part of a distributed board-level power system. @@2

After a jury found that Artesyn directly infringed claims 1, 6, 15-17, 23 and 30 of the '125 patent and failed to prove that any of the asserted claims were invalid, Artesyn moved for judgment as a matter of law claiming invalidity and non-infringement of the '125 patent. The district court denied the motion. The district court consequently entered a permanent injunction and an amended final judgment that Artesyn now appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (2006).

II. DISCUSSION

Artesyn raises two primary issues on appeal. First, Artesyn challenges the dis-trict court's construction of the claim term "POL regulator, " asserting that the district court did not provide an adequately precise construction of the term. Alternatively, Artesyn suggests that the term POL regulator is indefinite. Second, Artesyn challenges the jury's validity finding urging us to find that the '125 patent was obvious as a matter of law. We address each issue in turn.

A. Claim Construction

and Indefiniteness

1. Adequacy of the District Court'sClaim Construction

[1-4] We review claim construction de novo. See Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 555 F.3d 984, 989 (Fed.Cir.2009); Young v. Lumenis, Inc., 492 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed.Cir. 2007). When construing claims, the intrinsic evidence is the primary resource. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 1312 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc). Claim terms are "generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, " the meaning that the term would have to "a person of ordinary skill in the art... at the time of the invention." Id. at 1312-13 (internal citations omitted). The terms, as construed by the court, must "ensure that the jury fully understands the court's claim construction rulings and what the patentee covered by the claims." Sulzer Textil A.G. v. Picanol N.V., 358 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir.2004).

[5] Artesyn first contends that the district court's construction of the claim term POL regulator is flawed because it fails to articulate the scope of the asserted claims of the '125 patent in any meaningfully precise manner. Specifically, it argues that the court's construction of the terms "adapted" and "near" are facially vague and subjective, such that the construction left the jury free to make its own determination as to the claims' scope in violation

of Markman,

[6] Here, the district court construed the claim term "POL regulator" in a meaningfully precise manner. The court construed "POL regulator" to mean:

[A] dc/dc switching voltage regulator designed to receive power from a voltage bus on a printed circuit board and adapted to power a portion of the devices on the board and to be placed near the one or more devices being powered as part of a distributed board-level power system.

The intrinsic record supports the district court's construction, and despite Artesyn's contention, the terms "adapted to" and "near" are not facially vague or subjective. Claims using relative terms such as "near" or "adapted to" are insolubly ambiguous only if they provide no guidance to those skilled in the art as to the scope of that requirement. See Datamizc, 417 F.3d at 1347 (the definiteness of a claim's terms depends on whether those terms can be given a reasonable meaning by a person of ordinary skill in the art); see, e.g., Young, 492 F.3d at 1346 ("near" not indefinite); Central Admixture Pharm. Servs., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiac Solutions, 482 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed.Cir.2006) ("adapted to" not indefinite); Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed.Cir.2002) (same). Here, a person of ordinary skill in the field would understand the meaning of "near" and "adapted to" because the environment dictates the necessary preciseness of the terms.

The phrase "[t]o be placed near the one or more devices being powered as part of adistributed board-level power system, " as recited in the court's construction, implies that the dc/dc switching voltage regulator is to be placed on the printed circuit board—somewhere close to or at the load—the device being powered as part of the distributed board-level power system. Moreover, reference to the '125 patent's specification demonstrates that the term "near" means close to or at the load. As the specification of the '125 patent states:

[I]t is known to distribute an intermediate bus voltage throughout the electronic system, and include an individual point-of-load ("POL") regulator, i.e. DC/DC converter, at the point of power consumption within the electronic system.

This language indicates that the POL...