Zipwall, LLC v. Fastcap, LLC

• Decision Date: 09 April 2007
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 05-11852-JLT.
• Parties: ZIPWALL, LLC, Plaintiff, v. FASTCAP, LLC, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

Page 141

482 F.Supp.2d 141

ZIPWALL, LLC, Plaintiff, v. FASTCAP, LLC, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 05-11852-JLT.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

April 9, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Sarah E. Cooleybeck, Foley Hoag LLP, Boston, MA, Michael J. Cronen, Zimmerman & Cronen LLC, Oakland, CA, Jeremy A. Younkin, Foley Hoag LLP, Boston, MA, Harris Zimmerman, Zimmerman & Cronen LLP, Oakland, CA, for Fastcap, LLC.

Matthew B. Lowrie, Lowrie, Aaron W. Moore, Lowrie, Lando & Anastasi, Cambridge, MA, for Zipwall, LLC.

MEMORANDUM

TAURO, District Judge.

This case arises out of Plaintiff Zipwall, LLC's claim that Defendant Fastcap, LLC, is infringing three patents Plaintiff holds on its dust barrier technology. Defendant moves for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. Plaintiff has cross-filed for summary judgment of liability.

Background

I. Parties

Plaintiff Zipwall, LLC, a Connecticut company, supplies dust barrier systems for interior construction. Plaintiff's patents claim various products, methods, and systems related to erecting dust barriers using poles, clips, and plastic sheets. The poles incorporate Plaintiffs patented technology that allows a single person to construct a dust barrier without ladders, by attaching the curtain to a "coupling" mechanism at the end of the pole, raising the pole to the ceiling, and then repeating the process with adjacent curtain segments and other poles.

Defendant Fastcap, LLC, a Washington company, produces a product known as the "Third Hand," which is basically a pole with a ratchet and clamp mechanism that allows a user to jack up the head of the pole. This pole can be used to secure molding, hold drywall in place, and stabilize loads in transit.¹ Fastcap has also produced a "dust-barrier clip," or "DB clip," that fits over the top of the Third Hand. The DB clip allows one to secure a plastic curtain to the end of the pole, and using several Third Hands, to construct a dust barrier in a similar fashion to that described above.

B. Patents

Three of Plaintiffs patents are at issue in this case: the 6,209,615 ("'615"), 6,942,-004 ("'004"), and 6,953,076 ("'076") patents.

In Count II, Plaintiff alleges infringement of the '615 patent, which issued April 3, 2001. This patent covers a mounting system for installing a curtain including a pole with a "compression mechanism" and a clip for attaching the curtain to the head of the pole.² In Count I, Plaintiff alleges infringement of the '004 patent, which issued September 12, 2005. The '004 patent covers various refinements of the basic invention, including different mechanisms for attaching the curtain to the head of the pole such as clamps, spring-loaded jaws, an improved clip, and the like.³ In Count III, Plaintiff alleges infringement of the '076 patent, which issued October 11, 2005. This final patent covers further mechanisms for attaching the curtain to the head of the pole, such as a protrusions/mating holes mechanism.⁴ The '076 patent also includes several method claims, covering methods of "installing a curtain to form a room partition."⁵ All three patents have the same abstract, background of the invention, and summary of the invention.

III. Legal Standards

A. Summary Judgment

"Summary judgment is as appropriate in a patent case as it is in any other matter."⁶ 6 A party is entitled to summary judgment if the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.⁷ Under the summary judgment standard, the moving party bears the "initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for [its] motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits which [it] believe[s] demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact."⁸ In response to such a motion, the nonmoving party must "go beyond the pleadings and by [its] own affidavits, or depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, `designate' specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."⁹ The existence of cross-motions for summary judgment does not change the calculus; the court must act on each motion in turn, drawing inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, assessing the undisputed facts, and drawing conclusions as a matter of law.¹⁰

Because much of the dispute in this case resolves around the legal issue of claim construction, summary judgment on the first two counts is appropriate. But the court will not dispose of the entire case on summary judgment as neither party adequately demonstrates that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on count three.

B. Claim Construction

The purpose of claim construction is to determine the scope of a patent's claims.¹¹ The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently clarified the legal standards used to evaluate various sources of evidence of claim meaning.¹² Intrinsic evidence, including the claims, specification, and patent file history (if in evidence), extrinsic evidence, including expert testimony, dictionary definitions, learned treatises, and principles of interpretation inform a court performing claim construction.¹³

Intrinsic evidence is most compelling.¹⁴ The claims themselves define the scope of the patented invention. The claims "are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning," which is the meaning attached by a person of ordinary skill in the invention's art.¹⁵ The specification "is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term."¹⁶ In its recent opinion, the Federal Circuit emphasized this latter point.¹⁷ Strong reliance on the specification follows from statute¹⁸ and policy.¹⁹ At the same time, the court must be careful not to read a limitation from the specification into the claims.²⁰

If the scope of the claims is ambiguous after consulting intrinsic sources, the court may look to extrinsic evidence. Extrinsic evidence "can shed useful light on the relevant art," but is "less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language."²¹ In particular, "conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court."²² Particularly, "a court should discount any expert testimony `that is clearly at odds with the claim construction mandated by the claims themselves, the written description, and the prosecution history, in other words, with the written record of the patent.'"²³

Discussion

A. Infringement of the '615 Patent

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant's Third Hand product infringes the '615 patent. Defendant denies infringement. Both parties move for summary judgment on the issue.

1. Claim Construction: "Compression Mechanism"

Both independent claims in the '615 patent contain a claim limitation that requires the presence of a "compression mechanism along a longitudinal axis of said mount" or "a compressive mechanism between said foot and said head."²⁴ Plaintiff defines "compression mechanism" as "any structure that can be used to generate a compressive force within the pole."²⁵ Defendant defines "compression mechanism" as "any mechanism that can be compressed to adjust the fit of a mounted curtain and released to pin the adjusted curtain in place."²⁶ As discussed in the section on infringement, below, the allegedly infringing device falls within the scope of one definition but not the other. The court must therefore undertake claim construction to determine the proper definition of "compression mechanism."

The court adopts Defendant's definition. The '615 patent claims, abstract, figures, summary of the invention, detailed description of preferred embodiments, and prosecution history conclusively show that a "compression mechanism" is any mechanism that produces action equivalent to a spring, by itself compressing a sufficient distance to aid in installing and adjusting the curtain while concomitantly generating an outward force when compressed to stabilize the curtain mount.

First, the plain meaning of the claims supports Defendant's construction. A "compression mechanism" is a mechanism that compresses or causes compression. Plaintiff reads "compression mechanism" as including ratchet and clamp devices, as well as bottle jack-type cylinders.²⁷ It is problematic to label a jack or ratchet-type device as a compression mechanism, since the jack or ratchet device functions (creates a force) by expanding and not compressing. Furthermore, Plaintiff introduces no evidence to suggest that jack or ratchet devices are commonly referred to as compression mechanisms. Plaintiff argues that a ratchet is a compression mechanism because the ratchet lengthens "the point where it creates a compressive force within the pole to hold the pole in place."²⁸ But that compression of the pole at that point is imperceptible. In contrast, a spring itself compresses.

Second, the '615 patent abstract supports Defendant's construction. The patent Abstract describes "a spring-loaded curtain mount" including a "compression mechanism disposed between the proximal end of the mount and the head."²⁹" Further, the Abstract explains, "[d]uring installation ... the length of the pole is adjusted such that the combined length of the pole and mount is slightly longer than the distance between the floor and ceiling The curtain and mount are raised to the ceiling and the mount and pole are compressed [generating a] compressive force [that] secure[s] the mount in place."³⁰ Figure 7E of the patent shows the device operating in this fashion, and Figures 4A and 6 also depict a device capable of being compressed. The Summary of the Invention echoes the Abstract, describing "a spring-loaded curtain mount [and] adjustable pole,...