Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 October 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-1032.,02-1032. |
| Citation | 308 F.3d 1193 |
| Parties | TEXAS DIGITAL SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TELEGENIX, INC., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Richard L. Schwartz, Winstead Sechrest & Minick P.C., of Dallas, Texas, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief was Inge A. Larish.
Gregory J. Lavorgna, Drinker, Biddle & Reath LLP, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Joseph R. DelMaster, Jr., Robert E. Cannuscio, and Stephen B. Schott.
Before MICHEL, SCHALL, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
Telegenix, Inc. ("Telegenix") appeals from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in favor of Texas Digital Systems, Inc. ("TDS"). Because the district court erroneously construed certain disputed claim limitations, but correctly construed other claim limitations, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand.
TDS is the current owner of the four patents at issue, U.S. Patent Nos. 4,845,481 ("'481 patent"), 4,965,561 ("'561 patent"), 4,734,619 ("'619 patent"), and 4,804,890 ("'890 patent"), each issued to Karel Havel. TDS obtained these patents from Havel in 1997.
The Havel patents are directed to methods and devices for controlling the color of pixels in a light emitting diode ("LED") display. Each pixel includes at least two elements corresponding to different primary colors, e.g., one red element and one green element. Light signals from the two elements may be blended to produce a composite light signal of variable color. Figure 1 of the '481 patent, reproduced below, shows seven pixels arranged in a familiar seven-segment display pattern, each pixel having a red element (i.e., 2a-2g) and a green element (i.e., 3a-3g).
Claims 1 and 2 of the '481 patent are representative of the asserted claims of the '481 and '561 patents:
1. A method for controlling a color of a variable color display device which comprises a plurality of display areas arranged in a pattern for selectively exhibiting a plurality of display units, each said display area including a plurality of light sources for emitting upon activation light signals of respectively different primary colors and means for combining said light signals to obtain a composite light signal of a composite color, by exhibiting a selected display unit by repeatedly substantially simultaneously activating the light sources in selected display areas for brief time intervals to cause the light sources to emit light signals of said primary colors, and by selectively controlling the durations of the time intervals of activation of the light sources in the selected display areas to control the portions of the primary color light signals emitted therefrom, to thereby control the color of the exhibited display unit. (emphases added)
2. A variable color display device comprising:
a plurality of variable color display areas arranged in a pattern for selectively exhibiting a plurality of display units, each said display area including a plurality of light sources or emitting upon activation light signals of respectively different primary colors and means for combining said light signals to obtain a composite light signal of a composite color means for exhibiting a selected display unit by repeatedly substantially simultaneously activating the light sources in selected display areas by pulses of a substantially constant amplitude for causing the light sources to emit light signals of said primary colors; and
color control means for selectively controlling the durations of the pulses applied to the light sources in the selected display areas to control the portions of the primary color light signals emitted therefrom, to thereby control the color of the exhibited display unit. (emphases added)
The '619 patent is directed to display devices including a variable color background area 32 substantially surrounding the display area segments 31, as illustrated in Fig. 1a, reproduced below.
Claim 1 of the '619 patent is representative of the claims and is reproduced below:
1. A variable color display device comprising:
a plurality of variable color display areas arranged in a pattern, each said display area including a plurality of display light sources for emitting upon activation light signals of different colors and means for combining said light signals to obtain a composite light signal of a composite color;
a variable color background area substantially surrounding said display areas and including a plurality of background regions adjacent to said display areas, each said background region including a plurality of light sources for emitting upon activation light signals of different colors and means for combining said light signals to obtain a composite light signal of a composite color;
a plurality of opaque walls for optically separating said background regions from adjacent display areas; and
means for selectively activating said display light sources, to illuminate certain of said display areas in a first color, and said background light sources, to illuminate said background regions in a second color different from said first color. (emphases added)
The '890 patent is directed to a variable color LED display and display circuit as illustrated in Figure 3, reproduced below:
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
Representative claim 4 of the '890 patent is reproduced below:
4. A display device comprising:
a plurality of variable color display areas arranged in a pattern for selectively exhibiting a plurality of display units, each said display area including a plurality of light sources for emitting upon activation light signals of different colors and means for combining said light signals to obtain a composite light signal of a composite color;
first means for carrying selective display color control signals;
converter means for converting said display color control signals to obtain complementary color control signals;
second means for carrying said complementary color control signals; and control means for selectively coupling said light sources in said display areas to said first means, for causing selective ones of said display areas to illuminate in a selected color defined by said display color control signals, and to said second means, for causing the remaining display areas to illuminate in a substantially complementary color defined by said complementary color control signals. (emphases added)
After TDS obtained the Havel patents in 1997, TDS filed suit, alleging that Telegenix's Colorgraphix devices infringed each of them. Following a jury verdict in favor of TDS, the district court entered judgment that Telegenix had literally infringed claims 1-4 and 7 of the '481 patent, claims 1-4 of the '561 patent, claim 1 of the '619 patent, and claim 4 of the '890 patent. The district court also found each of the asserted claims not invalid and concluded that Telegenix had willfully infringed "one or more" of the four asserted patents.
The district court awarded TDS a reasonable royalty of 20% as applied to $30 million in infringing sales (i.e., $6 million), enhanced damages of $6 million, pre-judgment interest of $3,007,999, post-judgment interest at 6.5%, and costs. The district court also permanently enjoined Telegenix from making, using, selling, or offering to sell its Colorgraphix color display devices, versions of its software used with the Colorgraphix color display devices, or other devices that otherwise infringe.
Telegenix appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
Claim construction is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1456, 46 USPQ2d 1169, 1174 (Fed. Cir.1998) (en banc). The standard of review for jury instructions is prejudicial legal error. See Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Indus. Prods., 756 F.2d 1556, 1558, 225 USPQ 253, 255 (Fed.Cir.1985), overruled on other grounds by A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020, 22 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed.Cir.1992) (en banc). To prevail, the party challenging the jury instruction "must demonstrate both that the jury instructions actually given were fatally flawed and that the requested instruction was proper and could have corrected the flaw." Biodex Corp. v. Loredan Biomedical, Inc., 946 F.2d 850, 862, 20 USPQ2d 1252, 1261 (Fed.Cir.1991). "An erroneous instruction regarding claim interpretation that affects the jury's decision on infringement is grounds for a new trial." Ecolab Inc. v. Paraclipse, Inc., 285 F.3d 1362, 1373, 62 USPQ2d 1349, 1356 (Fed.Cir.2002).
Telegenix, which timely objected to the jury instructions at trial, argues that the district court erroneously interpreted the claims of the asserted patents in its Markman order and instructed the jury according to the erroneous claim constructions. Telegenix further argues that the district court abused its discretion in excluding certain evidence offered by Telegenix and in admitting other evidence presented by Texas Digital, and erroneously relied on the rule of Wine Railway Appliance Co. v. Enterprise Railway Equipment Co., 297 U.S. 387, 56 S.Ct. 528, 80 L.Ed. 736 (1936). On these grounds, Telegenix seeks a new trial. We address each of the allegations of error in turn.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. Cook
...analysis of the utilization of extrinsic evidence, the en banc court in Phillips clarified its holding in Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193 (Fed.Cir.2002) (relying extensively on the use of dictionaries, encyclopedias and treatises when determining the meaning of......
-
Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals
...(imparting a "heavy presumption" that a claim term carries its broadest ordinary and customary meaning); Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1203 (Fed.Cir.2002) (where more than one definition is consistent with the intrinsic evidence, "the claim terms may be constru......
-
Aguayo v. Universal Instruments Corp., CIV.A.H-02-1747.
...F.3d 1352, 1366 (Fed.Cir.2004); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed.Cir.2003); Tex. Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1204-05 (Fed.Cir.2002). In the absence of an express intent to impart a novel meaning to the claim terms, the words are presumed ......
-
Kothmann Enterprises, Inc. v. Trinity Industries
...such as dictionary definitions or expert testimony. The en banc court criticized the methodology adopted in Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193 (Fed.Cir.2002) — a case to which district courts often turned for guidance in claim construction — for the large role it ass......
-
"A"/"An" Means "One Or More," Said The Federal Circuit'Again
...Even through the variations in claim construction principles over this time period, cf. Tex. Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1203-04 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("dictionaries...are objective resources that serve as reliable sources of information on the established meanings that......
-
Collateral Estoppel Applied To Claim Limitation Despite Intervening Reexamination
...notion that claims of unrelated patents must be construed separately." Id. at 6 (citing Tex. Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1211 (Fed. Cir. The Court clarified that its decision does not automatically permit courts to "impose collateral estoppel to bar a claim constru......
-
Chapter §15.04 Canons of Patent Claim Interpretation
...skilled in the relevant art [and,] unless compelled otherwise, a court will give a claim term the full range of its ordinary meaning." 308 F.3d 1193, 1202 (Fed.Cir.2002). Specifically, Phillips rejected an approach "in which the specification should be consulted only after a determination i......
-
Patent law and the two cultures.
...Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., the court espoused consulting dictionaries first before considering the specification and prosecution history. 308 F.3d 1193, 1201-05 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ; see Mullally, supra note 143, at 354- Finally, in Phillips v. AWH Corp., another en banc decision, the Federal Ci......
-
Construing patent claims according to their "interpretive community": a call for an attorney-plus-artisan perspective.
...claim term, relied on by the district court in this case. Id. at 1585. (276.) See, e.g., Tex. Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202-03 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (repeatedly justifying a dictionary-driven approach to claim construction as a way to construe claims according to the......
-
Basics of Intellectual Property Laws for the Antitrust Practitioner
...clearly setting forth an explicit definition of a claim term different from its ordinary meaning,” Texas Digital Sys. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or if the meaning appears “‘with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.’” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Socie......