Corning Gilbert Incorporated v. John Mezzalingua Associates Incorporated

Filing 44

ORDER that after considering the arguments raised by the parties in their briefings and at the Markman hearing, the Court issues this ruling regarding the disputed terms in the '999 Patent and the '612 Patent, see PDF document for details. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 8/21/13. (LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
)
)
)
)
)
)
A s s o c i a t e s)
)
)
)
)

Corning Gilbert Incorporated,
9
Plaintiff,
10
vs.
11
12
13

John Mezzalingua
Incorporated,
Defendant.

No. CV-12-2208-PHX-SMM
ORDER

14
15

In this action Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has infringed on two U.S. Patents. On

16

July 30, 2013, the parties participated in a Markman hearing concerning the construction of

17

the patent claims at issue. See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979

18

(Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d 517 U.S. 370 (1996). After considering the arguments raised by the

19

parties in their briefings and at the Markman hearing, the Court issues the following ruling.

20

BACKGROUND

21

Plaintiff Corning Gilbert Incorporated is a company that accuses a competitor,

22

Defendant John Mezzalingua Associates Inc., d/b/a PPC Broadband, Inc., of infringing upon

23

two patents held by Plaintiff relating to coaxial connectors. The two patents at issue are

24

Patents No. 9,114,990 (the “‘990 Patent”) and No. 8,172,612 (the “‘612 Patent”).

25

Coaxial cables are commonly used in a wide variety of applications to carry radio

26

frequency signals between devices. Among the most commonly known uses for coaxial

27

cable is to connect TVs, set-top boxes, computers, DVD players and the like to signal sources

28

such as satellite dishes, cable TV lines, etc. In these cables, the inner conductor and the outer

1

conductor carry electrical signals. The inner conductor is often made of flexible copper or

2

copper-clad wire, while the outer conductor is usually constructed of a flexible wire braid

3

and foil.

4

The inner conductor is customarily called the “signal feed” (or “signal”), while the

5

outer conductor is called the “ground return” (or “ground”). To connect a coaxial cable to

6

a device, mating connectors are used to connect the cable to the receptacle (i.e. on a DVD

7

player). The center pin conductor of the coaxial cable must be connected to the central pin

8

on the receptacle. Plaintiff’s coaxial cable connectors that use the feature of the patents at

9

issue in this suit are called the “UltraShield” connectors.

10

When a connector is attached to a port on an appliance such as a DVD player, the

11

center conductor of the cable is inserted directly into the port. The outer conductor is pressed

12

against and electrically contacts the tubular post of the receptacle, from which it can be put

13

into electrical communication with the outer part of the appliance port by tightening the

14

connector nut until the face or flange of the tubular post touches the appliance port to form

15

the ground path between the cable and the appliance.

16

The patents at issue here have substantially the same specification and drawings, but

17

different claims. The patents are both titled “Electrical Connector with Grounding Member.”

18

The patented connectors here purportedly addressed a longstanding problem in the art: that

19

posed by loose connectors which result in poor electrical connections between cable and

20

device. The patents solved this problem by finding a way to assure that a good connection

21

existed even when the connector nut was not fully tightened. This was a frequent problem

22

because in many cases it is difficult for an installer to reach connection ports with a wrench,

23

or to fully tighten the nut using fingers. When a loose connection exists, a space is left

24

between the appliance port and the tubular post of the connector, resulting in poor or

25

sometimes no electrical connection.

26

The patented connectors here purportedly solved this issue by placing a resilient

27

electrical grounding member, such as a metallic spring, between the tubular post and the nut,

28

such that a reliable electrical connection path is maintained between them. This insures that
-2-

1

an electrical ground path exists even when the nut is not fully tightened onto the appliance

2

port.

3

Pursuant to presentations at the Markman hearing and the parties’ respective motions

4

and memoranda, Plaintiff alleges that no claim construction is required for the

5

straightforward terms in the ‘990 Patent, but asks the Court to construe three clauses of the

6

‘612 Patent: two in Claim 2, and one in Claim 8. Defendant takes issue with three clauses

7

in Claim 29 of the ‘990 Patent, and six clauses in the ‘612 Patent (five in Claim 2, one in

8

Claim 8).

9
10
11

Claim 29 of the ‘990 Patent states as follows, with disputed terms in bold-face type:
A coaxial cable connector for coupling a coaxial cable to an equipment port,
the coaxial cable including a center conductor surrounded by a dielectric
material, the dielectric material being surrounded by an outer conductor, the
coaxial cable connector comprising in combination:

12
13

a. a tubular post having a first end adapted to be inserted into the prepared
end of the coaxial cable between the dielectric material and the outer
conductor, and having a second end opposite the first end thereof;

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

b. a coupler having a first end rotatably secured over the second end of
the tubular post, and having an opposing second end, the coupler including
a central bore extending therethrough, a portion of the central bore proximate
the second end of the coupler being adapted for engaging the equipment port;
c. a body member secured to the tubular post and extending about the
first end of the tubular post for receiving the outer conductor of the
coaxial cable, wherein the body member contacts the coupler; and
d. a resilient, electrically-conductive grounding member disposed
between the tubular post and the coupler, the grounding member contacting
both the tubular post and the coupler for providing an electrically-conductive
path therebetween;

21
22

wherein the tubular post, the body member, the grounding member, and
the coupler are disposed about a common longitudinal axis;

23

wherein the grounding member comprises a spring projecting portion that
extends away from a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.

24
25

(Doc. 36 at 9-10.)

26

Claim 2 of the ‘612 Patent reads as follows, with disputed terms in bold-face type:

27

A grounding member for a coaxial cable connector having a post and a
nut, comprising:

28
-3-

1
2
3
4
5

a ring portion composed at least partially of electrically conductive
material, and a contact portion composed at least partially of a plurality of
circumferential spring members projecting from respective base portions
in a plane of the ring to respective movable portions displaced from the plane
of the ring along a circumferential path of the ring, wherein the spring
members are arranged symmetrically about the ring portion, respective base
and movable portions of each circumferential spring member lie
predominantly along a common circumferential path, and the contact
portion provides for an electrically-conductive path through the post and the
nut.

6
7
8
9

(Id. at 6-7.)
Claim 8 of the ‘612 Patent contains a clause stating that “the circumferential spring
members do not extend radially inward toward a center of the grounding member.”

10

Thus, the disputed terms for are: (1) “rotatably secured over the second end of the

11

tubular post”; (2) “a body member secured to the tubular post and extending about the first

12

end of the tubular post for receiving the outer conductor of the coaxial cable, wherein the

13

body member contacts the coupler”; (3) “disposed between the tubular post and the coupler”;

14

(4) “ring portion”; (5) “circumferential spring members projecting from respective base

15

portions in a plane of the ring”; (6) “along a circumferential path of the ring”; (7) “respective

16

base and movable portions of each circumferential spring member lie predominantly along

17

a common circumferential path”; and (8) “the circumferential spring members do not extend

18

radially inward toward a center of the grounding member.”

19

LEGAL STANDARD

20

Patent claim construction is a question of law and “is exclusively within the province

21

of the court.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). Claim

22

construction is “the process of giving proper meaning to the claim language,” the

23

fundamental process that defines the scope of the protected invention. Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron

24

Corp., 122 F.3d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997), citing Bell Commc’ns Research, Inc. v.

25

Vitalink Commc’ns Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 619-20 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Each claim of a patent is

26

entitled to a presumption of validity and is to be treated as a complete and independent

27

invention. Leeds and Catlin v. Victor Talking Mach. Co., 213 U.S. 301, 319 (1909).

28

The process of claim construction begins and ends in all cases with the actual words
-4-

1

of the claim. Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficose N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

2

Claims should be considered as a whole, and terms used in multiple claims should be

3

construed consistently. Inverness Med. Switz. BmbH v. Princeton Biomeditech Corp., 309

4

F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed Cir. 2002). When the disputed words of a claim are unambiguous,

5

courts assign the terms their ordinary and customary meanings as understood by persons of

6

ordinary skill in the relevant art. Vanderlande Indus. Nederland BV v. Int’l Trade Comm’n.,

7

366 F.3d 1311, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Int’l Rectifier Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 361 F.3d 1363,

8

1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004). There is a heavy presumption in favor of the ordinary and customary

9

meaning of a claim term. Tex. Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202

10

(Fed. Cir. 2002).

11

To determine the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term, courts may review

12

sources including the claims themselves, the written description, the prosecution history, and

13

dictionaries and treatises. Id.; Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at 1325; DeMarini Sports, Inc. v.

14

Worth, Inc., 239 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Technical dictionaries are worthy of

15

special note and constitute evidence of understanding of persons of skill in the relevant art.

16

Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 371 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004). If a term

17

has more than one plausible ordinary meaning, the court must consult the intrinsic record to

18

identify which of the possible meanings is most consistent with the use of the words by the

19

inventor. Stephen Key Design LLC., v. Lego Sys., Inc., 261 F. Supp. 2d 1196, 1199 (N.D.

20

Cal. 2003).

21

There are three sources of intrinsic evidence: “[t]he claims, the specification, and the

22

prosecution history.” Markman, 52 F.3d at 979; Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90

23

F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Within the intrinsic evidence there is a “hierarchy of

24

analytical tools.” Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Identix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir.

25

1998). While “[t]he actual words of the claim are the controlling focus,” the specification,

26

which contains a written description of the invention, is also important, “in particular to

27

determine if the patentee acted as his own lexicographer . . . and ascribed a certain meaning

28

to those claim terms.” Id.; see also Abbott Labs. v. Syntron Bioresearch, Inc., 334 F.3d 1343,
-5-

1

1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Stating that a patentee can act as his or her own lexicographer

2

provided that the written definition, to the extent that it differs from the conventional

3

definition, is set forth with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision in the patent or

4

its prosecution history to affect the claim.); Bell Commc’ns, 55 F.3d at 620. When the

5

inventor has expressly defined claim terms, “[t]he specification acts as a dictionary” and is

6

generally dispositive as to the term’s meaning. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582.

7

Where ambiguity cannot be resolved upon consideration of the intrinsic evidence,

8

courts may consider extrinsic evidence of meaning, such as dictionaries and expert

9

testimony, to help come to a proper understanding of the claims. Id. at 1584 (holding that

10

“where the patent documents are unambiguous, expert testimony regarding the meaning of

11

a claim is entitled to no weight.”); Masco Corp. v. United States, 303 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir.

12

2002). There is a preference for dictionaries over other extrinsic evidence such as expert

13

testimony. Nikon Corp. v. ASM Lithography B.V., 308 F. Supp.2d 1039, 1057 (N.D. Cal.

14

2004). Extrinsic evidence may not be used to vary or contradict the claim language.

15

Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1584. Thus, so long as the extrinsic evidence does not vary, contradict,

16

expand or limit term meanings found in or construed in the intrinsic record, the Court may

17

consult such evidence to “better understand the underlying technology.” Id.; Bell Atl.

18

Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

19

Here, however, the Court has no need to consider extrinsic evidence.
DISCUSSION

20
21

I.

22

A. “rotatably secured over the second end of the tubular post”

23

Plaintiff contends that this claim term is simple and clear, and thus needs no further

24

construction by the Court. (Doc. 36 at 9-10.) Defendant disagrees, and contends that this

25

term should be construed to mean that “the coupler is axially fixed over the second end of

26

the post by attachment to the body in a manner that allows the coupler to rotate.” (Doc. 37

27

at 8.)

28

Disputed Claims Within the ‘990 Patent.

Defendant contends that its proposed claim construction is necessary in order to
-6-

1

clarify for the jury an essential requirement of Plaintiff’s patented device that is not clearly

2

expressed in the plain language of the term. Specifically, Defendant’s proposed construction

3

details that the coupler is fixed over the second end of the tubular post by attachment to the

4

body of the connector. This is more detailed than the actual claim language, which does not

5

specify whether the coupler is attached to the body of the connector, or directly attached to

6

the tubular post, or in some other way secured over the second end of the tubular post.

7

Defendant contends that the more detailed construction is necessary and supported by

8

the patent specifications. (Doc. 37 at 6.) In the patent specifications, Plaintiff’s diagrams

9

of the connector indicate that the coupler is secured over the send end of the tubular post by

10

attachment to the body of the connector, rather than to the post itself or some other location.

11

(Doc. 36-4 at 6.) Further, Defendant points out that the specification describing the preferred

12

embodiment of the device states that the coupling nut is designed and attached to the

13

connector in a manner so as “not to interfere with free rotation of the coupling nut” relative

14

to the tubular post. (Doc. 36-4 at 15.) Thus, Defendant argues, the coupler must necessarily

15

be attached to the body of the connector, as this is the only way to ensure the free rotation

16

of the coupler; if the coupler were instead secured by attachment to the tubular post itself,

17

the result would be friction between the coupler and the post, and thus interference with the

18

coupler’s free rotation.

19

The Court disagrees that “free rotation” of the coupler requires that the coupler be

20

attached to the body member. Defendant argues that “free rotation” of the coupler mandates

21

that the coupler be able to spin easily, which may only be achieved if the coupler is attached

22

to the body – but “free rotation” does not automatically require ease of rotation, and as

23

Defendant itself notes, a coupler attached directly to the tubular post is still capable of being

24

rotated, albeit with slightly more effort.

25

The Court does agree, however, with Defendant’s argument that the claim language,

26

together with the specifications and diagrams, lead to the conclusion that the coupler must

27

be attached to the body – not because of the “free rotation” language, but because of a

28

separate portion of the claim which specifies that the body member contacts the coupler. As
-7-

1

Defendant notes, section (c) of Claim 29 of the ‘990 Patent specifies that the body member

2

contacts the coupler. (Doc. 36-4 at 18.) Defendant correctly points out that due to the

3

construction of Plaintiff’s connector, wherein the tubular post moves axially with respect to

4

the rest of the connecter, if the coupler were secured directly to the tubular post and not the

5

body member, the coupler would have to move with the post, which would take it out of

6

contact with the body in violation of the limitation that the body member contacts the

7

coupler.

8

Accordingly, the Court agrees with Defendant that claim construction is necessary to

9

clarify this portion of the patent language. While the claim language is the first step in

10

analysis of the claim, specifications do serve as intrinsic evidence of the meaning of

11

ambiguous claim terms, and as Defendant has demonstrated, it is not possible for Plaintiff’s

12

patent to cover a connecter wherein the coupler is not attached to the body member.

13

However, the Court finds unnecessary Defendant’s proposed construction of the claim

14

to require that the coupler be “axially fixed” over the second end of the post. The plain

15

language of the claim, that the coupler is “rotatably secured” over the second end of the post,

16

is clear and unambiguous. Defendant argued at the Markman hearing that without the added

17

“axially fixed” construction, the term implies that the coupler could simply fall off the end

18

of the connector. The Court disagrees. The claim language clearly states that the coupler is

19

“secured” over the second end of the tubular post, which plainly indicates that the coupler

20

is attached to the connector in a permanent fashion, and yet that it “rotatably” secured, and

21

thus capable of rotation. This portion of the claim term requires no further construction by

22

the Court, and the Court will not inject additional terms or limitations where none are needed.

23

Accordingly, the Court will apply the following construction: the phrase “rotatably

24

secured over the second end of the tubular post” of section (b) of Claim 29 of the ‘990 Patent

25

will be construed as “rotatably secured over the second end of the tubular post by attachment

26

to the body in a manner that allows the coupler to rotate.”

27
28
-8-

1
2

B. “a body member secured to the tubular post and extending about the first
end of the tubular post for receiving the outer conductor of the coaxial cable, wherein
the body member contacts the coupler.”

3

Plaintiff contends here as well that the plain language of the claim is sufficient and

4

requires no construction. (Doc. 36 at 9-10.) Defendant argues that this term should be

5

construed to require that “the body is fixed to the post, extends axially at least as far as the

6

first end of the post, and is attached to the coupler in a manner that allows the coupler to

7

rotate.” (Doc. 37 at 6-9.) Defendant’s requested construction here essentially consists of

8

three separate parts: (1) changing “secured” to “fixed”; (2) adding that the body member

9

must extend “axially at least as far as the first end of the post”; and (3) specifying that the

10

body member contacts the coupler by being “attached to the coupler in a manner that allows

11

the coupler to rotate.”

12

Defendant argues that “secured” must be changed to “fixed,” but provides no

13

convincing reason for the modification. Indeed, as Defendant notes in its brief, the definition

14

of “secure” when used as a verb means to fix or attach something firmly so that it cannot be

15

moved or lost. (Doc. 37 at 10.) As such, the Court finds no reason to make this superficial

16

change.

17

Defendant’s second requested change, however, is a valid construction of the claim

18

language. As Defendant notes, the phrase “extending about the first end of the tubular post

19

for receiving the outer conductor of the coaxial cable” means that the body member must

20

extend at least as far as the end of the post that receives the cable (the first end). Defendant

21

also correctly notes that the patent diagram illustrates that the body member extends that far,

22

and the plain meaning of the phrase “extending about” indicates that the body member

23

extends to and surrounds that end of the tubular post. Accordingly, the Court agrees with

24

Defendant’s proposed construction as to this portion of the claim term.

25

Defendant’s third requested construction in this claim term is unnecessary. Defendant

26

argues that “wherein the body member contacts the coupler” must be construed to require

27

that body member contacts the coupler by being “attached to the coupler in a manner that

28

allows the coupler to rotate.” The Court finds this construction superfluous in light of the
-9-

1

Court’s construction of the claim term in Section A above, where the Court agreed with

2

Defendant’s construction requiring that the coupler is rotatably secured to the body member,

3

not the tubular post. Thus, the claim language here plainly describes what has already been

4

established: that the coupler is attached to the body member in a manner that allows it to

5

rotate. This construction renders it an obvious fact that the coupler is attached to and in

6

constant contact with the body member, and can rotate. Accordingly, the Court will not

7

apply any further construction to this portion of the claim term.

8

Therefore, the Court will apply the following construction: the phrase “a body

9

member secured to the tubular post and extending about the first end of the tubular post for

10

receiving the outer conductor of the coaxial cable, wherein the body member contacts the

11

coupler” of section (c) of Claim 29 of the ‘990 Patent will be construed to mean that the body

12

member is “secured to the tubular post and extending axially at least as far as the first end

13

of the post for receiving the outer conductor of the coaxial cable, wherein the body member

14

contacts the coupler.”

15

C. “disposed between the tubular post and the coupler”

16

Plaintiff argues that construction of this claim term is unnecessary, the plain and

17

ordinary meaning being sufficient. (Doc. 36.) Defendant argues that this phrase from section

18

(d) of Claim 29 should be construed to mean that “the grounding member is located between

19

the surfaces of the post and the coupler that it contacts.” (Doc. 37 at 9.) Plaintiff disagrees,

20

arguing that the claim language does not require that the grounding member be disposed

21

between the surfaces it touches, as Defendant proposes.

22

The Court finds Plaintiff’s argument here contradictory and unsupportable. The

23

patent claim clearly states that the coupler is located between the tubular post and the

24

coupler, and its function is to act as an electrically conductive path through the connector by

25

bridging the gap between the coupler and the tubular post. In order to achieve its purpose,

26

the grounding member must therefore be located between the surfaces of the post and the

27

coupler that it contacts. Plaintiff’s disavowal of this obvious fact is unconvincing, and the

28

Court finds that Defendant’s proposed construction is accurate and helps to clarify the claim
- 10 -

1

language. The Court does not, however, see the need to change the word “disposed” to

2

“located.” Accordingly, the Court will construe this claim term to mean that “the grounding

3

member is disposed between and contacts the surfaces of the tubular post and the coupler.”

4

II. Disputed Claims Within the ‘612 Patent.

5

A. “ring portion”

6

Plaintiff contends that “ring portion” is self-explanatory and no construction is

7

necessary for this claim term. Defendant argues that this term should be construed to mean

8

“a circular portion of the grounding member, distinct from the contact portion.” (Doc. 37 at

9

10.) This proposed construction can be divided into two parts: (1) changing “ring portion”

10

to “a circular portion of the grounding member”; and (2) adding “distinct from the contact

11

portion.” Defendant contends that this construction is proper because the claim’s use of the

12

term “ring” requires that the grounding member be circular, rather than any other ring-like

13

shape (such as an oval or ellipse). Defendant argues that the addition of “distinct from the

14

contact portion” is also necessary in light of the prosecution history wherein Plaintiff took

15

the position that the ring portion does not include the structure of the grounding member that

16

is located outside a circular ring. (Id. at 10-11.)

17

The Court agrees with Defendant that the proposed construction of “ring portion” is

18

necessary to clarify the claim language. The Court finds that the patent clearly contemplates

19

a circular grounding member, rather than one that is ovular or elliptical. Indeed, the Court

20

is hard-pressed to imagine how any other shape could possibly be integrated into the device,

21

as the body member, tubular post, coupler, and coaxial cable are all circular in shape.

22

Although the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the technical definitions of “ring” and

23

“circumference” can potentially include non-circular shapes, the plain language of the claim

24

terms here clearly indicate that the grounding member is circular in shape.

25

Similarly, the Court agrees with Defendant that the addition of “distinct from the

26

contact portion” is required to conform the claim language to the prosecution history. As

27

Defendant notes in its brief, during reexamination of this patent claim Plaintiff took steps to

28

avoid a prior art reference, that being the “Tatsuzuki” patent. (Doc. 37 at 11.) In order to
- 11 -

1

distinguish the Tatsuzuki patent, Plaintiff excluded from its definition of “ring portion” those

2

parts of the grounding member outside of the circle. This construction also comports with

3

the plain meaning of the claim language, as the patent clearly differentiates between the “ring

4

portion” and the “contact portions” of the grounding member, by describing a grounding

5

member comprised of “a ring portion . . . and a contact portion.” Accordingly, the Court

6

will adopt Defendant’s proposed construction of this claim language, and the term “ring

7

portion” will be construed to mean “a circular portion of the grounding member, distinct

8

from the contact portion.”

9

B. “circumferential spring members projecting from respective base portions
in a plane of the ring . . . along a circumferential path of the ring.”

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff and Defendant both propose constructions to the bolded portions of the
following language in Claim 2 of the ‘612 Patent:
A grounding member for a coaxial cable connector having a post and a nut,
comprising:

14
15
16
17
18

a ring portion composed at least partially of electrically conductive material,
and a contact portion composed at least partially of a plurality of
circumferential spring members projecting from respective base portions
in a plane of the ring to respective movable portions displaced from the plane
of the ring along a circumferential path of the ring, wherein the spring
members are arranged symmetrically about the ring portion . . . .
(Doc. 36 at 6-7.)

19

Defendant proposes that “circumferential spring members” be construed as “spring

20

members that are located about the circumference of the ring portion.” (Doc. 37 at 13-14.)

21

The Court agrees with Defendant’s proposed construction, as this construction reflects the

22

plain meaning of the claim language, and clarifies that the patented grounding member in this

23

device has spring members which are located along, about, or in other words in the same

24

circumferential path as the circumference of the ring. This construction comports as well

25

with Plaintiff’s own proposed construction of “along a common circumferential path,” as

26

discussed below in section C.

27

The parties each offer proposed constructions for the portion of the claim language

28

“along a circumferential path of the ring.” Plaintiff argues that this portion of the claim
- 12 -

1

language should be construed as “the circumferential spring members project in a direction

2

that is from respective base portions to respective movable portions and in the direction that

3

is along a circumferential path of the ring. The respective base portions are in a plane of the

4

ring and respective movable portions are displaced from the plane of the ring.” (Doc. 36 at

5

13:1-5.) Defendant proposes that the term “along a circumferential path of the ring” be

6

construed to mean that “the movable portions of the spring members follow the same path

7

as the ring portion.” (Id. at 15-16.)

8

The Court finds no material difference in meaning between these two proposed

9

constructions. Both Plaintiff and Defendant propose constructions which emphasize that the

10

spring members follow the circumference of the ring portion of the grounding member.

11

Plaintiff’s construction contains more detail, however, and will be adopted to assist the jury

12

in understanding the claim language at issue here. Thus, the Court will construe “along a

13

circumferential path of the ring” as “the circumferential spring members project in a direction

14

that is from respective base portions to respective movable portions and in the direction that

15

is along a circumferential path of the ring. The respective base portions are in a plane of the

16

ring and respective movable portions are displaced from the plane of the ring.”

17

Finally, Defendant proposes that the term “plane of the ring” be construed as “an

18

imaginary flat surface that radiates out infinitely 360 degrees from the center of the ring.”

19

(Id. at 14.) Plaintiff takes the position that this term needs no construction, and that the plain

20

meaning of the claim requires that a plane exist and be within the ring, the plane being “a

21

feature of” the ring. The Court agrees with Defendant that the technical definition of a

22

“plane” is an imaginary flat surface that radiates out infinitely 360 degrees from a given

23

point. The Court agrees also with Defendant that nothing in the patent language nor the

24

prosecution history indicates that Plaintiff acted as its own lexicographer and intended a

25

specialized definition of the word “plane” in the claim. Accordingly, the Court will adopt

26

Defendant’s proposed construction of “plane of the ring.”

27
28
- 13 -

1

C. “respective base and movable portions of each circumferential spring
member lie predominantly along a common circumferential path”

2
3

Plaintiff proposes that this language be construed to read “the base portion and

4

movable portion of the circumferential spring member each lie predominately in the same

5

circumferential path.” (Doc. 36 at 10-11.) At the Markman hearing, Defendant stated that

6

although it thought no construction was necessary, it did not oppose Plaintiff’s proposed

7

construction.

8

circumferential path” and “in the same circumferential path,” the Court finds that the

9

proposed construction comports with the plain language of the claim and may assist the jury

10

by clarifying the claim term. Accordingly, the Court will adopt Plaintiff’s proposed

11

construction.

12

D. “the circumferential spring members do not extend radially inward toward
a center of the grounding member.”

Although the Court sees little difference between “along a common

13
14

Plaintiff proposes that this language from Claim 8 of the ‘612 Patent be construed to

15

read “the circumferential spring members do not project in a direction radially inward toward

16

a center of the grounding member.” (Doc. 36 at 15.) At the Markman hearing, Defendant

17

stated that it had no opposition to this construction, although it again stated that it believed

18

the plain language was sufficient. The Court will adopt Plaintiff’s proposed construction,

19

interposing “do not project in a direction radially inward” in place of “do not extend radially

20

inward.”
CONCLUSION

21
22

Based on the foregoing,

23

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

24

As to the disputed terms in the ‘990 Patent:

25

1.

The claim term “rotatably secured over the second end of the tubular post” is defined

26

as “rotatably secured over the second end of the tubular post by attachment to the body in a

27

manner that allows the coupler to rotate.”

28

2.

The claim term “a body member secured to the tubular post and extending about the
- 14 -

1

first end of the tubular post for receiving the outer conductor of the coaxial cable, wherein

2

the body member contacts the coupler” is defined as “a body member secured to the tubular

3

post and extending axially at least as far as the first end of the post for receiving the outer

4

conductor of the coaxial cable, wherein the body member contacts the coupler.”

5

3.

6

mean that “the grounding member is disposed between and contacts the surfaces of the

7

tubular post and the coupler.”

8
9

The claim term “disposed between the tubular post and the coupler” is defined to

As to the disputed terms in the ‘612 Patent:
1.

The claim term “ring portion” is defined as “a circular portion of the grounding

10

member, distinct from the contact portion.”

11

2.

12

are located about the circumference of the ring portion.

13

3.

14

circumferential spring members project in a direction that is from respective base portions

15

to respective movable portions and in the direction that is along a circumferential path of the

16

ring. The respective base portions are in a plane of the ring and respective movable portions

17

are displaced from the plane of the ring.”

18

4.

19

radiates out infinitely 360 degrees from the center of the ring.”

20

5.

21

member lie predominantly along a common circumferential path” is defined to mean that “the

22

base portion and movable portion of the circumferential spring member each lie

23

predominately in the same circumferential path.”

24

6.

25

toward a center of the grounding member” is defined to mean that “the circumferential spring

26

members do not project in a direction radially inward toward a center of the grounding

27

member.”

28

The claim term “circumferential spring members” is defined as “spring members that

The claim term “along a circumferential path of the ring” is defined to mean that “the

The claim term “plane of the ring” is defined as “an imaginary flat surface that

The claim term “respective base and movable portions of each circumferential spring

The claim term “the circumferential spring members do not extend radially inward

DATED this 21st day of August, 2013.

- 15 -