Whirlpool Corp. v. Lg Electronics, Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 August 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:03-CV-113.,4:03-CV-113. |
| Citation | 423 F.Supp.2d 730 |
| Parties | WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION and Whirlpool Patents Company, Plaintiffs and Counterdefendants, v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Defendants and Counterplaintiffs. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Christopher E. Tracy, James H. Geary, Howard & Howard Attorneys, P.C., Kalamazoo, MI, Mary C. Bonnema, McGarry Bair, LLP, Grand Rapids, MI, for Plaintiffs.
Kevin A. Rynbrandt, Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt & Howlett LLP, Kalamazoo, MI, for Defendants.
Plaintiffs, Whirlpool Corporation and Whirlpool Patents Company ("Whirlpool"), charge Defendants, LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. ("LG"), with infringing at least claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 5,219,370 ("the '370 patent") and at least claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 11, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 5,233,-718 ("the '718 patent"). The patents pertain to washing and rinsing methods used in automatic washing machines. Before the Court are the parties' proposals for construction of disputed claim terms in the briefs and various exhibits and heard the arguments of counsel, the Court now makes the following findings and conclusions regarding the construction of the disputed patent claim terms.
Before a fact finder can determine whether there has been an infringement of a patent, the Court must first construe the patent claims alleged to be infringed to ascertain their meaning and scope. See Markman, 52 F.3d at 976. This step of the process is called claim construction. Claim construction is a matter of law, exclusively within the Court's province, while infringement is an issue of fact. Id. at 979.
In the Supreme Court's Markman decision, and in numerous decisions from the Federal Circuit, certain principles of patent claim construction have emerged to guide this Court. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the purpose of patent claims is to apprise the public of what is protected by a particular patent. See Markman, 517 U.S. at 373, 116 S.Ct. at 1387 () (quoting McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 424, 12 S.Ct. 76, 77, 35 L.Ed. 800 (1891)). In other words, the claims in the patent provide the "metes and bounds of the right which the patent confers on the patentee to exclude others from making, using, or selling the protected invention." Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed.Cir.1989). Although construction of patent claims is similar to construction of any written document, and general principles of construction are used, special considerations apply to patent claim construction based on the need for the public and other inventors to know as precisely as possible the scope of the patentee's claims. Thus, the Court looks primarily to matters in the public record when construing patent claims.
Exactly what constitutes the "public record" has been described in various Federal Circuit decisions. As stated in Burke, Inc. v. Bruno Independent Living Aids, Inc., 183 F.3d 1334 (Fed.Cir.1999), "This court has held that the language of the claims, the specification and the prosecution history are principally involved in construing patent claims because these constitute the public record." Id. at 1340. The patent claims, specifications, and prosecution history are known as intrinsic evidence and should be the primary forms of evidence upon which the Court relies for purposes of claim construction. Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324-25 (Fed.Cir.2002) (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996)) ( that such evidence is "the most significant source of the legally operative meaning of the disputed claim language"). In addition, "prior art cited in a patent or cited in the prosecution history of the patent constitutes intrinsic evidence." Kumar v. Ovonic Battery Co., Inc., 351 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed.Cir.2003).
To determine the meaning of the claim terms, the Court must begin with the words of the claims themselves. Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1324. "[T]he language of the claim frames and ultimately resolves all issues of claim interpretation." Abtox Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019, 1023 (Fed.Cir.1997). Courts look first to the dictionary definition of a contested term to determine its meaning. Kumar, 351 F.3d at 1367. Unless the specifications or prosecution history indicate otherwise, claim terms should be given the ordinary meaning that a person of ordinary skill in the art would ascribe to them. Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1325; Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1204-4205 (Fed.Cir.2002). Courts must always first attempt to discern the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim words themselves before consulting the written description and prosecution history. Id. at 1205. Generally, the specifications and prosecution history in the intrinsic record may not further limit the claims beyond the limitations contained in the claims themselves. Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1326 (). Courts may not simply import characteristics of a disclosed or preferred embodiment into the meaning of claim terms. Texas Digital Sys., 308 F.3d at 1204.
Courts must, however, examine claim terms within the context of the specifications to determine whether it appears that the inventor intended to impart novel meanings to the claim terms by deviating from ordinary definitions. Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1324. If the claim language is unclear on its face, then the Court may consider the specifications and the prosecution history to resolve the lack of clarity. Id. at 1324-25; Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed.Cir.2001). Texas Digital Sys., 308 F.3d at 1204. The presumption in favor of a dictionary definition will be overcome where the patentee, acting as his or her own lexicographer, has clearly set forth an explicit definition of the term different from its ordinary meaning. Id. The presumption will also be rebutted if the inventor has disavowed or disclaimed scope of coverage by using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of the claim. Id. In addition, claims may be limited by disclaimers or disavowals the inventor represented to the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") during the patent application process demonstrating an intent to deviate from the term's ordinary and accustomed meaning. See Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1326 () (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Ecolab, Inc. v. Envirochem, Inc., 264 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir.2001). However, even though the claims are interpreted "in view or the specification and prosecution history, the "focus must be on the claims." Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1326; see also Interactive Gift, 256 F.3d at 1323 ().
In addition to intrinsic evidence, the Court may, when necessary, look to extrinsic evidence to construe patent claims. Extrinsic evidence consists of treatises, expert testimony, inventor testimony, and prior art not cited in the prosecution history, and may be used to assist with claim construction when the intrinsic evidence is insufficient to establish the clear meaning of the asserted claim, so long as the extrinsic evidence does not contradict the claim language. See Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582-84; Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed.Cir.2003).
The claims asserted under the '370 patent are as follows:
Claim 1: A method of washing fabric in a washer having a wash chamber rotatable about a horizontal axis comprising the steps:
—rotating said wash chamber about its horizontal axis with fabric therein at a spin speed to effect less than a one gravity centrifugal force on said fabric such that said fabric will tumble in said wash chamber;
—directing a recirculating spray of concentrated detergent solution having a concentration level in the range of 0.5 to 12% detergent by weight onto said fabric for a first period of time as said fabric is tumbling in said wash chamber;
—after said first period of time, diluting said concentrated detergent solution to a lesser detergent concentration level, no less than 0.28 % by weight, and spinning said wash chamber to effect less than a one gravity centrifugal force on said fabric such that said fabric will again tumble in said wash chamber;
—directing a recirculating spray of said lesser concentrated detergent solution onto said fabric for a second period of time as said fabric is tumbling in said wash chamber; and
—draining said lesser concentrated detergent solution from said wash chamber subsequent to said second...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. Hangzhou Century Co.
...term's ordinary meaning. Abbot Labs. v. Syntron Bioresearch, Inc., 334 F.3d 1343, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In Whirlpool Corp. v. LG Elec., Inc., 423 F. Supp. 2d 730 (W.D. Mich. 2004), the court was called upon to interpret the phrase "horizontal axis," which related to the position of the was......
-
State v. Tuma
...do not conclusively favor either side's view of the plain and ordinary meaning of the term horizontal.” Whirlpool Corp. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 423 F.Supp.2d 730, 738 (W.D.Mich.2004). Nor do we wish to enter into the fray that arose at the motion hearing regarding the relationship between a hor......