The Toro Co. v. White Consol.
| Decision Date | 10 December 1999 |
| Citation | 53 USPQ2d 1065,199 F.3d 1295 |
| Parties | (Fed. Cir. 1999) THE TORO COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WHITE CONSOLIDATED INDUSTRIES, INC., and WCI OUTDOOR PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants-Appellants. 98-1334 DECIDED: |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Earl D. Reiland, Merchant, Gould, Smith, Edell, Welter and Schmidt, P.A., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were David K. Tellekson, and Timothy A. Lindquist.
William McGuinness, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, of New York, New York, argued for defendants-appellants.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge RADER.
Before NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN,* Senior Circuit Judge, and RADER, Circuit Judge.
White Consolidated Industries, Inc., and WCI Outdoor Products, Inc. (together "White") appeal the decision1 of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granting summary judgment that White infringed United States Patent No. 4,692,528, assigned to The Toro Company ("Toro"). We have construed the claims de novo, as precedent requires. On the correct claim construction, the judgment of literal infringement can not stand. We reverse the judgment, and remand for determination of infringement by application of the doctrine of equivalents.
The '528 patent describes and claims a hand-held convertible vacuum/blower, an implement for yard work that can be used both as a vacuum cleaner for collecting leaves and other debris, and as a blower for dispersing the same. In both modes a centrifugal fan (called an impeller) rotating in a housing moves air through the device in a constant direction, sucking air in through an air inlet, and blowing air out through an air outlet or exhaust. For use in vacuum cleaner mode, the operator connects a vacuum tube and nozzle to the air inlet and places a collection bag over the air outlet. Debris is sucked into the impeller where it is mulched by action of the fan and then blown through the air outlet into the collection bag. For use as a blower, the operator connects a directing tube to the air outlet and places a protective cover over the air inlet opening to keep hands, clothing and debris clear of the fan. Such devices were known to the prior art.
The '528 patent is directed to a vacuum/blower wherein the air velocity is adjusted depending on whether the device is used as a vacuum cleaner or as a blower. The velocity of the air during use as a blower is increased by reducing the size of the air inlet.2 In vacuum mode, however, such reduction of the air inlet opening is not desired, for twigs and other debris can more easily clog the inlet, thus impeding operation of the device.
In the device as claimed in the '528 patent, the cover is fitted with a ring that restricts the size of the air inlet in blower mode and prevents air spill between the high pressure side and the low pressure side of the impeller blades. As illustrated in patent Figure 4, this restriction ring (76) is attached to the air inlet cover, which itself has apertures through which air passes.
[Tabular or Graphical Material Omitted] In blower mode the air inlet cover bearing the restriction ring is placed on the air inlet opening, whereby the ring reduces the total air inlet, thus optimizing operation as a blower. In vacuum mode the air inlet cover is removed and replaced by the vacuum nozzle, the inlet having the larger aperture desirable for vacuum operation. The '528 patent emphasizes that by attaching the air flow restriction ring to the air inlet cover, i.e., "as part of the air inlet cover," the ring will always be located precisely where it is needed to automatically restrict the air flow when the air inlet cover is in place.
White, a manufacturer of similar devices, upon Toro's introduction of its improved model embodying the patented structure, attempted to design around the '528 patent. In White's design the air inlet is also restricted by a ring that is present during operation as a blower and absent in vacuum mode, as in the '528 patent. But unlike Toro's vacuum/blower, White's restriction ring is not attached as part of the air inlet cover but is a separate part. White's ring is manually inserted into the air inlet opening under the cover during blower operation, and removed along with the cover for vacuum operation. White's restriction ring is not automatically removed with White's cover, but must be separately lifted out. In addition, White's cover is not completely separable from the housing, but swings open on a hinge. White states that its overall design does not incorporate the invention of the '528 patent and constitutes a successful attempt to design around its claims.
Toro charged White with infringement of claims 16 and 17 of the '528 patent (bracketed numerals added):
16. A convertible vacuum-blower comprising:
[1] a housing having an air inlet and an air outlet;
[2] a motor supported in said housing
[3] an impeller having a plurality of impeller blades supported for rotary motion in said housing, in fluid communication with said air inlet and said air outlet, and rotatably driven by said motor;
[4] a removable air inlet cover for covering said air inlet, said air inlet cover having apertures for passage of air through the cover;
[5] attachment means for removably securing said air inlet cover to said housing; and
[6] said cover including means for increasing the pressure developed by said vacuum-blower during operation as a blower when air is being supplied to said impeller through said apertured cover.
17. A convertible vacuum-blower in accordance with claim 16 wherein
[7] said pressure differential increasing means includes a ring carried by said cover and disposed sufficiently close to said impeller to prevent air spill over between the high pressure side and low pressure side of said impeller blades during rotation of said impeller.
The district court construed the claims, as mandated by Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 38 USPQ2d 1461 (1996). The court then granted Toro's motion for summary judgment that claim 16 of the '528 patent was literally infringed by the accused devices. Toro conceded that claim 17 was not literally infringed. The charge of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was not reached during the summary proceedings.
White argues that the district court incorrectly construed the terms "air inlet cover" and "attachment means for removably securing" in claim clause [5], and "cover including means for increasing the pressure" in clause [6]. White states that on this incorrect construction, summary judgment of infringement was improperly granted.
The district court applied the general rule that words in patent claims are given their ordinary meaning in the usage of the field of the invention, unless the text of the patent makes clear that a word was used with a special meaning. See Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477, 45 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ( ); Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. B.P. Chems. Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575, 1578, 38 USPQ2d 1126, 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (); Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Sys., Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1577, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the '528 specification no special meaning in the field of the invention is attributed to the words "cover," "included," "attachment," and "removable." However, words of ordinary usage must nonetheless be construed in the context of the patent documents. Thus the court must determine how a person of experience in the field of this invention would, upon reading the patent documents, understand the words used to define the invention.
Toro and White had each relied on dictionary definitions of the common words "cover," "attachment," "removable," and "included," each choosing definitions that favored its position. As this case well illustrates, the dictionary definitions of common words are often less useful than the patent documents themselves in establishing the usage of ordinary words in connection with the claimed subject matter. This is not an issue of the richness of language, or variety or imprecision in the usage of words. Determining the limits of a patent claim requires understanding its terms in the context in which they were used by the inventor, considered by the examiner, and understood in the field of the invention.
In judicial "claim construction" the court must achieve the same understanding of the patent, as a document whose meaning and scope have legal consequences, as would a person experienced in the technology of the invention. Such a person would not rely solely on a dictionary of general linguistic usage, but would understand the claims in light of the specification and the prior art, guided by the prosecution history and experience in the technologic field.
The district court relied on the dictionary definition of "cover" as "something that protects, shelters or guards; . . . something that is placed over or about another thing," and construed "cover" as it relates to the claimed vacuum/blower as "that which functions to overlay and conceal the air inlet and serves to guard the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wesley Jessen Corp. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.
...by the inventor in the context of the entirety of his invention," but not to limit a claim term); cf. Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1302 (Fed.Cir.1999) (the terms of a claim will be limited to specific embodiments in the specification where "the invention is de......
-
Emerson Elec. Co. v. Spartan Tool, LLC
...they were used by the inventor, considered by the examiner, and understood in the field of the invention." Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1299 (Fed.Cir.1999). However, "if `the term or terms chosen by the patentee so deprive the claim of clarity that there is no mean......
-
Astra Aktiebolag v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
...in the specifications and prosecution histories, which overcome any presumption arising from the doctrine. Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1302 (Fed. Cir.1999). Simply put, claim differentiation cannot broaden claims beyond their correct scope. Toro Co., 199 F.3d at A......
-
Shell Global Solutions (us) Inc. v. Rms Eng'g Inc.
...concept was described as embodying the applicant's invention, or shown in any of the drawings, or presented for examination.” 199 F.3d 1295, 1301 (Fed.Cir.1999). Whether an invention is fairly claimed more broadly than the preferred embodiment in the specification is a question specific to ......
-
Basics of Intellectual Property Laws for the Antitrust Practitioner
...131. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Innova/Pure Water , 381 F.3d at 1118; Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., 199 F.3d 1295, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 1999). 132. See United State District Court for the Northern District of California, Local Rules for Patent Cases (2008), ......
-
Table Of Cases
...523 F.2d 288 (2d Cir. 1975), 41. Tisch Hotels v. Americana Inn, 350 F.2d 609 (7th Cir. 1965), 79. Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., 199 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1999), 32, 36. Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879), 78. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 507 F. Supp. 2d 870 (N.D. Ill. 20......
-
Markman Twenty Years Later: Twenty Years of Unintended Consequences
...2001) (holding that dictionaries should only be used when the patent fails to define a term); Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1299-300 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that general dictionaries are unsuited to scientific meaning of words); Anderson v. Int'l Eng'g and Mfg., I......
-
The Federal Circuit and Claim Construction: Resolving the Conflict Between the Claims and the Written Description
...that an increasing ratio of patent infringement suits will be resolved on summary judgment). See also Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., 199 F.3d 1295, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (noting that the district court granted summary judgment on literal infringement after claim construction); Wang Labs.......