Federal
“While we have set out above a portion of the evidence from which a reasonable factfinder…could find that Kids2’s Comfy Clean Deluxe tub infringes the ‘209 patent, nothing we have said should be taken to mean that such a factfinder would be compelled to make such a finding.” – Federal Circuit majority
Source: CAFC opinion
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Tuesday, January 14, issued a split decision reversing a district court’s grant of summary judgement of non-infringement in a case involving a patent for a multi-stage tub meant for bathing infants and toddlers. Judge Stark authored the majority opinion and Judge Chen dissented-in-part.
U.S. Patent No. TO TOMY responded with its own counterclaims alleging infringement of the ‘209 patent.
At the district court, a magistrate judge construed a key claim term, “distal edges joined at a bottom surface apex,” to mean “edges of the seating surfaces situated farthest away from their respective back rests joined to each other at the area of a high point of the bottom surface of the body between the seating surfaces.” TOMY and Kids2 files cross motions for summary judgment of infringement and non-infringement and the same magistrate judge recommended granting Kids2’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, among other recommendations, which the district court adopted in full.
Source: CAFC opinion
In reviewing the district court’s claim construction, the majority of the Federal Circuit panel agreed with TOMY that the district court erred by limiting the “‘distal edges joined at a bottom surface apex’ solely to direct connections.” The CAFC opinion said “the term ‘at a bottom surface apex’ indicates where the distal edges of the two seating surfaces join but does not limit how those distal edges must be joined.” The CAFC found support for this reading throughout the relevant claims as well as the specification and prosecution history and ultimately adopted TOMY’s claim construction of “distal edges joined at a bottom surface apex.” Specifically, the CAFC construed the term to mean the “areas of the seating surfaces situated furthest away from their respective back rests are connected directly or indirectly by an intervening structure at a high point of the bottom surface of the body between the seating surfaces.” However, the majority rejected TOMY’s remaining arguments about the district court’s claim construction errors, refusing to change the district court’s interpretation of the terms “bottom surface” or “seating surfaces.”
Because the opinion reversed the district court’s claim construction in part, the district court’s decision to grant in part Kids2’s motion to exclude TOMY’s expert testimony on infringement was also reversed since the CAFC said the expert’s opinion was “not inconsistent with the correct claim construction.” Similarly, the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment of non-infringement to Kids2 was based on the now-reversed claim construction and must be reconsidered on remand under the proper construction, said the CAFC. However, the majority affirmed the district court’s denial of TOMY’s motion for summary judgment of infringement, noting that, “[w]hile we have set out above a portion of the evidence from which a reasonable factfinder, taking the evidence in the light most flattering to TOMY, could find that Kids2’s Comfy Clean Deluxe tub infringes the ‘209 patent, nothing we have said should be taken to mean that such a factfinder would be compelled to make such a finding.”
Judge Chen’s dissent was premised on the view that TOMY’s theories of infringement were evolving and that, regardless of construction, “both [theories] are fatally flawed.” Chen explained that TOMY’s first infringement theory stretches the plain and ordinary meaning of “seating surface”:
“TOMY argues the near-vertical sidewall of the Accused Tub’s central hump is part of the toddler seating surface. I In
E E
