Aubin Industries, Inc. v. Caster Concepts, Inc.

Filing 71

MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 9/26/17. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AUBIN INDUSTRIES, INC.,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

Defendant.
CASTER CONCEPTS, INC.,

17
18
19
20

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CASTER CONCEPTS, INC.,

15
16

No. 2:14-cv-02082-MCE-CKD

Counterclaimant,
v.
AUBIN INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Counter-Defendant.

21
22

Through the present action, filed on September 8, 2014, Plaintiff Aubin Industries,

23

Inc. (“Aubin”) seeks injunctive relief and damages from Defendant Caster Concepts Inc.

24

(“Caster”) for alleged patent infringement. Aubin pleads causes of action for patent

25

infringement, unfair competition, and intentional and negligent interference with

26

prospective economic relationships. On October 30, 2014, Caster filed an answer to

27

Aubin’s complaint that included counterclaims for invalidity and non-infringement of

28

Aubin’s patent. On March 22, 2016, after being provided a claims construction tutorial
1

1

as to the patent at issue, the Court held a so-called Markman hearing regarding the

2

construction of certain disputed claims in the patent. Having considered the argument of

3

counsel and the papers and declarations submitted, the Court construes the disputed

4

claims below.

5
6

BACKGROUND

7
8
9

On April 19, 2005, Aubin had United States Patent No. 6,880,203 (“The ‘203
Patent”) issued on a wheel assembly for use in industrial settings.1 Aubin’s patent

10

design involved independently rotating disks in the wheel assembly that help to move

11

heavy equipment more effectively. Aubin used the ‘203 Patent to market and sell its

12

popular “Swivel-EAZ®” line of wheel assemblies. Pl.’s Compl., ¶¶ 14-16.

13

According to Aubin’s Complaint, Caster has directly infringed on its ‘203 Patent by

14

“making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale ergonomic wheel assemblies with

15

multiple independently rotatable disks,” including its “Twergo” branded line of wheel

16

assemblies. Id. at ¶ 19. Aubin alleges both direct infringement as well as contributory

17

infringement stemming from Caster’s alleged import of components especially adapted

18

for use in its wheel assemblies. Id. at ¶¶ 26-27, 29.

19
20

The ‘203 Patent has two independent claims. The claim language employed in
Independent Claim 1 is as follows:

21

1. A split tread wheel assembly, including:

22

[1a] a pair of tread assemblies disposed in closely spaced,
axially aligned relationship, and means for supporting said
pair of tread assemblies on a common structural element
in independently rotatable fashion;

23
24

[1b] each of said tread assemblies including a central
aperture, and a pair of sealed ball bearing assemblies, each
secured within said central aperture of one of said tread
assemblies;

25
26
27
28

1

A copy of the ‘203 patent is attached to Aubin’s Complaint as Ex. A.

2

1

[1c] further including a generally cylindrical spacer having
a pair of annular lands at opposed ends thereof, each of
said annular lands disposed to engage the inner race of
one of said pair of bearing assemblies.

2
3
4

The highlighted portion of Claim 1 above encompasses the terms for which Caster seeks

5

construction.2 For its part, Aubin asks the court only to construe the phrase “means for

6

supporting said pair of tread (disk) assemblies on a common structural element in

7

independently rotatable fashion.”

8
9

In addition to construing Claim 1 as enumerated above, Caster also asks the
Court for a construction as to a portion of Dependent Claim 5, as set out in bold below:

10

The wheel assembly of claim 4, wherein said spacer
comprises a tubular member having an axial opening there
through, and further including a pair of hub inserts adapted
to be received within said axial opening of said spacer.

11
12
13

Finally, Aubin requests construction as to the highlighted portions of Dependent
Claim 12:

14

12. The wheel assembly of claim 11, further including
threaded means for applying axially compressive force to
opposed ends of said axle to urge said pair of arms
toward each other and compressively impinge on said outer
end surfaces of said hub inserts.

15
16
17
18
19

The Court will construe each of the requested terms in the analysis section of this
Memorandum and Order below.

20
21

STANDARD

22
23

Claims construction, which construes the meaning of terms at issue in a patent, is

24

a legal determination solely with the province of the court. Markman v. Westview

25

Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996); 02 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation

26
2

27
28

The ‘203 Patent’s second independent claim, Number 4, is essentially identical except that it
refers to “disk assemblies” instead of “tread assemblies.” Neither party asks the Court to construe
Independent Claim 4 any differently than Claim 1.

3

1

Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“The purpose of claim construction is

2

to determine the meaning and scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed.”)

3

In interpreting patent terms, the court must analyze the intrinsic evidence of

4

record, which consists of the claim language, the patent specification, and, if in

5

evidence, the prosecution history. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,

6

1582 (Fed Cir. 1996). A court should first consider claim language, which should

7

generally be given its “ordinary and customary meaning” unless clearly stated otherwise.

8

Id. The “ordinary and customary” meaning of a claim term is “the meaning that the term

9

would have to be a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the

10
11

invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (9th Cir. 2005).
After claim language, the court looks to the patent specification. Vitronics,

12

90 F.3d at 1582. The specification, which is the single best guide to the meaning of a

13

disputed term, is highly relevant to the claims construction analysis and may well be

14

dispositive. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. It is a fundamental rule that claims must be

15

construed so as to be consistent with the specification. Id. at 1316. Courts therefore

16

rely heavily on the written description of the claims in the specification for guidance when

17

conducting claim construction. Id. at 1317. When reviewing the specification, however,

18

courts must avoid reading limitations from the specification into the claim. Id. at 1323.

19

To avoid importing limitations, the court must consider the purposes of a specification,

20

which is to teach and enable those of skill in the art to make and use the invention and to

21

provide the best way of doing so. Id.

22

In addition to the claims themselves and the specification, courts should also

23

consider the patent’s prosecution history, if that history is in evidence. Id. at 1317. The

24

prosecution history consists of the record of the proceedings before the United States

25

Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and includes the prior art cited during the

26

examination of the patent. Id. The prosecution history, which is part of the intrinsic

27

evidence, provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent. Id.

28

The prosecution history limits the interpretation of claims terms so as to exclude any
4

1

interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution. See Southwall Technologies,

2

Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570. 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

3

Although the intrinsic evidence is the most important for claims construction, the

4

court may also rely on extrinsic evidence if necessary. Extrinsic evidence “consists of all

5

evidence external to the patent prosecution history, including expert and inventor

6

testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. Extrinsic

7

evidence, while useful, is generally less significant than the intrinsic record and should

8

be evaluated in light of available intrinsic evidence. Id. at 1319.

9

“Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and

10

confirmed with a full understanding of what the eventers actually invented and intended

11

to envelop with the claim. Renishaw PLC v. Marpass Societa per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243,

12

1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citing Markman, 517 U.S. at 389). “The construction that stays

13

true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the

14

invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Id. Therefore, “[a] claim

15

construction is persuasive, not because it follows a certain rule, but because it defines

16

terms in the context of the whole patent.” Id.

17
18

ANALYSIS

19
20

The chart below summarizes the Court’s construction of the claims terms at issue,

21

and is followed by the Court’s supporting analysis as to each term:

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
5

1

Disputed Claim Term

2

“a generally cylindrical spacer having a pair “a generally cylindrical spacer having two

3

of annular lands at opposed ends thereof”

Construction

outer diameter surfaces separated by a

4

raised area and located at regions adjacent

5

to the spacer’s sidewalls”

6

“said annular lands disposed to engage the “the annular lands of the spacer positioned

7

inner race of said pair of bearing

so the inner races of the pair of ball

8

assemblies”

bearing assemblies sit on top of them”

9

“means for supporting said pair of

Means: spacer (22) as disclosed in

10

[tread/disk] assemblies on a common

Figure 5 of the ‘203 patent specification

11

structural element in independently

Function: supporting said pair of tread

12

rotatable fashion”

(disk) assemblies on a common structural

13

element in independently rotatable fashion

14

(undisputed)

15

“closely spaced . . . relationship”

Indefinite

16

“hub inserts adapted to be received with

“hub inserts dimensioned to pair with the

17

said axial opening of said spacer”

inner diameter of the axial opening of said

18

spacer”

19

“threaded means for applying axially

Means: axle (36) and nut (39) as

20

compressive force to opposed ends of said

disclosed in Figure 5 of the ‘203 patent

21

axle to urge said pair of arms toward each

specification

22

other”

Function: “to apply axially compressive

23

force at opposed ends of said axle to urge

24

said pair of arms toward each other”

25

(undisputed)

26

///

27

///

28

///
6

1

A.

2

“a generally cylindrical spacer having a pair of annular lands at
opposed ends thereof”

Caster asserts that this clause is far and away the most significant issue for the

3
4

court to construe. According to Caster, the concept of placing two wheels in a single

5

caster dates back more than a hundred years to a patent issued in 1915. See Excerpt

6

from ‘203 Patent prosecution history, Ex. 2 to Decl. of Dr. Paul Wright. Caster goes on

7

to allege that the ‘203 patent was not the first split-tread wheel, design, either, pointing to

8

a patent issued in 1951 that described a single wheel assembly with two independently

9

rotating disk or tread assemblies. Wright Decl., Ex. 4. Given that prior art, according to

10

Caster, the patent examiner authorized the ‘203 Patent only after Aubin amended its

11

patent request to include a specification that the patent includes “a generally cylindrical

12

spacer having a pair of annular lands at opposed ends thereof,” along with the additional

13

proviso as discussed below that “each of said annular lands [be] disposed to engage the

14

inner race of one of said pair of bearing assemblies.” Id. at Ex. 2. Caster maintains that

15

it is Aubin’s spacer, with its annular lands, that separates the ‘203 Patent not only from

16

the prior art but also from Caster’s own patented caster design. The ‘203 spacer has

17

two outer diameter surfaces separated by a raised area. Caster argues those outer

18

diameter surfaces, upon which rest the ball bearings and wheel assembly rests, are the

19

“annular lands” referred to in the ‘203 Patent. Caster further asserts that its own design

20

is different because it uses a plain ring-shaped spacer without any edge discontinuity,

21

along with hat-shaped hub inserts that also are fundamentally different from those

22

inserts identified in the ‘203 Patent.
The heart of the construction dispute faced by the Court is in defining the term

23
24

“annular lands.” The ‘203 Patent does not just require a spacer, but one with “a pair of

25

annular lands.” Caster argues that the annular lands are the surfaces shown in the ‘203

26

Patent, and cannot include surfaces never identified in the patent that conflict with the

27

patent specification.

28

///
7

1

As a preliminary matter, it appears that annular surfaces are surfaces that go

2

around the object. By referring to an “outer diameter surface” or an “inner diameter

3

surface”, the ‘203 patent uses the term annular consistently, and claims must be read in

4

light of the patent’s specification, which “is the single best guide to the meaning of a

5

disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. All annular surfaces referenced in the ‘203

6

Patent are horizontal to the upright structure, and as such are all diameter surfaces as

7

opposed to vertical sidewalls.

8
9

In addition to the way the term “annular surfaces” is used in the ‘203 patent
specification itself, Caster also proffers as further support for its position of the

10

Declaration of Professor Paul Wright, a mechanical engineering professor at the

11

University of California, Berkeley and a member of the National Academy of

12

Engineering. Dr. Wright opines that in the context of mechanical engineering, cylindrical

13

objects like those at issue here commonly refer to “annular surfaces” as “curved inner or

14

outer diameter surfaces, as opposed to the object’s sidewalls. Wright Decl., ¶ 21.

15

Having defined the term “annular surfaces” we must next proceed to the meaning

16

of “annular lands.” Given its particular usage in mechanical engineering, Dr. Wright

17

states that “annular lands” is a term of art. Expert testimony is appropriate to “establish

18

that a particular term in the patent or the prior art has a particular meaning in the

19

pertinent field.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. Expert testimony is also appropriate to

20

ensure that the court understands how a claim term would be understood by one skilled

21

in the art. AIA Engineering Ltd. v. Magotteaux Int’l S/A, 657 F.3d 1264, 1273 (Fed. Cir.

22

2011).

23

As a term of art in mechanical engineering, Dr. Wright describes annular lands as

24

referring to “particular surfaces on certain annular, or ring shaped, objects that have

25

more than one outer diameter surface.” Wright Decl., ¶ 11. According to Dr. Wright, an

26

object, like Caster’s spacer, that is simply a ring shaped-object “does not have annular

27

lands.” Instead, “annular lands are created when there is a discontinuity in the outer

28

diameter surface of a ring-shaped object. The discontinuity can be a raised or lowered
8

1

surface.” Wright Decl., ¶ 11. To have annular lands, an object needs a step or ridge on

2

the diameter surface. Annular lands as identified in Figure 5 of the ‘203 patent are the

3

distinct outer diameter surfaces where a discontinuity is present. A plain ring-shaped

4

spacer is perfectly smooth and lacks the distinct outer diameter surfaces that result when

5

such a discontinuity exists. Absent that stepped surface, a plain spacer lacks annular

6

lands. See Wright Decl., par 11. The Court finds Dr. Wright’s reasoning persuasive.

7

The term “having a pair of annular lands,” then, as used in the ‘203 Patent, means

8

“having two outer diameter surfaces separated by a raised area.”

9

This interpretation is consistent both with Figure 5 of the ‘203 Patent and photos

10

of the patented spacer. The only surfaces identified in the patent as annular lands are

11

identified in Figure 5 as annular lands 23, and those surfaces are described in the ‘203

12

patent as “spaced apart annular lands 23 at opposed ends of the spacer.” ‘203 patent,

13

col. 3:42-44. The reference to “opposed ends” means the annular lands go to the edge

14

of the spacer and do not encompass the spacer’s sidewalls. While Plaintiff argues that

15

“at opposed ends” means the sidewalls, that construction would be inconsistent with the

16

preferred embodiment as depicted in Figure 5 of the patent and would consequently

17

violate claim construction law. See On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Bodeseewerk Perkin-Elmer

18

GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The ‘203 Patent does not use term

19

“annular” to refer to the sidewalls of ring-shaped objects. Instead, as noted by

20

Dr. Wright, it uses the term to identify the rounded inner or outer diameter surfaces of

21

ring-shaped objects. See Wright Decl. ¶ 22, and its supporting references to the ‘203

22

patent at 1) 2:11 (referring to the “annular (limited) bearing surfaces of the wheel on the

23

axle”, which is the inner diameter surface of the wheel, not its sidewalls); at 2) 2:37-42

24

(referring to the central annular surfaces 21 of hub inserts, which are outer diameter

25

surfaces of the inserts on which the spacer sits); and at 3) 3:35 (referring to “annular

26

recess 17”, which is the inner diameter of the wheel disk that receives the ball bearing

27

assemblies). Each reference identifies the inner or outer diameter of a ring-shaped

28

object, not to its sidewalls. Consequently, as Dr. Wright notes, “one of ordinary skill in
9

1

the art would understand the claim term ‘a generally cylindrical spacer having a pair of

2

annular lands at opposed ends thereof’ as used in the ‘203 Patent to mean a generally

3

cylindrical spacer having two outer diameter surfaces separated by a raised area and

4

located at regions adjacent to the spacer’s sidewalls.” Wright Decl., ¶ 11. The Court

5

agrees with Dr. Wright’s analysis of the term “annular lands” in the context of the ‘203

6

Patent.

7

Dr. Wright also points out that other patents have used the phrase “annular lands”

8

in a manner consistent with his proposed construction and the terms of the ‘203 patent

9

itself. A 1987 patent issued to Matson (U.S. Patent No. 4,785,926), for example, uses

10

the term “annular land” to refer to an outer diameter surfaces when, like here, there are

11

different outer diameter surfaces on a ring-shaped object, with an outer diameter surface

12

holding the inner race of a ball bearing assembly. See id. at ¶ 19, Ex. 6. Another

13

patent, issued to Pfister in 1991 (U.S. Patent No. 5,086,751), uses the term “annular

14

lands” to refer to outer diameter surfaces of ring-shaped objects with differing outer

15

diameter surfaces. Id. at ¶ 18, Ex. 7. In the Court’s view, these comparisons add further

16

credence to Dr. Wright’s interpretation of “annular lands” as adopted herein.

17

Aubin, on the other hand, simply urges the Court to rely on purportedly “plain

18

meaning” of the term, arguing that there is “nothing technical about the phrase.”

19

According to Aubin, the term “annular” simply means a circular surface and “lands”

20

means “to come to rest in a particular place”. To support its assertion that “land” should

21

be afforded its everyday meaning, Aubin cites both the Merriam-Webster dictionary

22

definition of “land” as well as Philip Aubin’s own deposition testimony3 that if ”you jump

23

off a chair you land on the floor, and if “you land a plane, you land it on a run way.”

24

Aubin Dep., Ex C to the Singer Decl., 209:21-210:2. The Court does not find this

25

reasoning persuasive, and does not believe that a lay definition is proper in the face of

26
3

27
28

Phillip Aubin, the listed inventor of the ‘203 patent, is Aubin’s President. A machinist by trade,
Aubin has no engineering degree and has taken no engineering courses. Aubin Dep., Ex. 2 to the Harkins
Decl., 45:20-46:19.

10

1

Dr. Wright’s assertion that “annular lands” is a term of art, not a lay term.4 Significantly,

2

lay dictionary definitions for technical terms cannot be used to contradict expert

3

testimony on technical terms. See Vanderlande Indus. Nederland BV v. I.T.C., 366 F.3d

4

1311, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

5

Based on all the foregoing, then, the Court construes the claim term “a generally

6

cylindrical spacer having a pair of annular lands at opposed ends thereof” as meaning “a

7

generally cylindrical spacer having two outer diameter surfaces separated by a raised

8

area and located at regions adjacent to the spacer’s sidewalls.”

9

B.

10
11

“said annular lands disposed to engage the inner race of said pair of
bearing assemblies”

This is an additional patent specification describing the ‘203 spacer. Aubin

12

argues that it should simply be given its plain meaning. Caster, on the other hand,

13

alleges that because a jury may have difficulty with what it means for the annular lands

14

to engage the ball bearings, the term should be interpreted to make it clear it means

15

that the inner race of the ball bearings sits on top (and not next to) the lands. Therefore,

16

the construction advocated by Caster is “the annular lands of the spacer positioned so

17

the inner races of the pair of ball bearing assemblies sit on top of them.” According to

18

Caster, this helps the jury, is consistent with the ‘203 Patent and comports with industry

19

usage. The Court agrees.

20

A ball bearing assembly is typically a ring-shaped object that has an inner race

21

(the inner circular portion), an outer race (the outer circular portion) and a ball race in

22

between. Wright Decl, ¶ 26 The purpose of a ball bearing assembly is to allow an

23

object on the outside of the assembly to rotate independently of the object on the inside

24

of the assembly, or vice versa. Id. As Dr. Wright explains, to one of ordinary skill in the

25

art, engaging the inner race of a ball bearing assembly typically refers to putting the

26

inner facing side of the inner race onto a shaft or similar object, akin to the process of

27
28

4

It should also be noted that, according to Dr. Wright, the concept of “lands” in mechanical
engineering is taught in textbooks such as Shigley & Miscke’s Mechanical Engineering Design, 5th ed.
(McGraw Hill, 1989), another factor militating against a simple lay definition of the term. Wright Decl, ¶ 18.

11

1

putting a ring on to a finger. Wright Decl., ¶ 27. More specifically for purposes of the

2

present case, one engages the inner race of a ball bearing assembly by putting it on a

3

cylindrical object, here the outer facing diameter of the spacer. Id. at ¶ 29. Dr. Wright

4

goes on to point out that this interpretation is consistent with the phrase’s usage in the

5

‘203 patent, where the inner races are engaged by annular lands on the spacer such

6

that the annular lands sit under the inner races of the ball bearings. See, e.g., ‘203

7

patent, Fig. 5. Consequently, by putting the inner race on a spacer, the outer race can

8

spin without causing the inner race to also spin. In that way, placing the inner race on

9

top of the spacer’s annular lands engages them. Wright Decl., ¶ 27. Significantly, the

10

‘203 patent agent does not refer to engaging an inner race from the side or sidewalls.

11

To the contrary, the ‘203 patent makes it clear that the ball bearing is already engaged

12

on top of the annular lands of the spacer before the hub inserts are added.

13

Aside from simply arguing that the phrase should be accorded its plain meaning,

14

Aubin has cited no evidence to contradict Caster’s proffered construction, which the

15

Court finds persuasive. The term “said annular lands disposed to engage the inner race

16

of said pair of bearing assemblies” is therefore construed to mean “the annular lands of

17

the spacer positioned so the inner races of the pair of ball bearing assemblies sit on top

18

of them.”

19

C.

20
21

“means for supporting said pair of [tread/disk] assemblies on a
common structural element in independently rotatable fashion”

The parties agree that this term utilizes so called “means-plus function” language

22

that, in turn, invokes special rules in claims construction. In analyzing such language,

23

the Court must first identify the pertinent “means” and more precisely what structure the

24

patent clearly links to a given function.

25

Caster argues that the proposed means under this analysis is the spacer itself,

26

whereas Aubin contends that the means is the entire hub assembly, comprised not just

27

of the spacer but the spacer together with the two hub inserts assembled together, along

28

with all equivalent structures. The second, “function” portion of the analysis is
12

1

undisputed inasmuch as both parties agree that the requisite function consists of

2

supporting the tread (disk) assemblies on a common structural element in independently

3

rotatable fashion. The crux of the dispute, then, is that Caster claims that spacer itself

4

performs the function whereas, according to Aubin, the function requires hub inserts and

5

not just the spacer.

6

The law requires a “clear link” between the structure disclosed in the patent and

7

the function stated in the claim. B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419,

8

1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Structures not clearly linked to the function are excluded. See,

9

e.g., Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek, Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Here,

10

according to the ‘203 Patent, the function of supporting the tread assemblies in an

11

independently rotatable fashion is performed by spacer with its annular land. As the

12

patent states:

13

A cylindrical spacer 22 extends about the surfaces 21 of both
hub inserts 19, and includes spaced apart annular lands at
opposed ends of the spacer to support and retain the inner
races of the ball bearing assemblies 18. Thus the wheel
disks 13 are both supported by the same spacer component,
yet are independently rotatable.

14
15
16
17
18

‘203 patent, col. 3:41-46.5
Consequently, whether the hub inserts help the wheels to operate is irrelevant.

19

That is not a condition of the claim, which requires a common structural element to

20

support the wheel assemblies in independently rotatable fashion. The ‘203 Patent

21

makes clear that this is accomplished by the spacer itself, with its annular lands. Only

22

the spacer is required to actually support the tread/disk assemblies. Moreover, the

23

patent makes it clear that the wheel disks are assembled to the spacer before the hub

24

inserts are added.6 At most, the hub inserts, like any such insert, simply keep the ball

25

bearings in place on their respective lands and prevent those bearings from sliding

26
5

27
28

The numbers inserted into the quotation refer to the components depicted in Figure 5 of the
patent specification.
6

See ‘203 Patent, col. 4:38-45

13

1

sideways away from the spacer. They do not support the bearings themselves, only the

2

annular lands do.

3

The wheel disks are both supported by the same spacer component, yet are

4

independently rotatable. There is no need to add any other structures to the means; the

5

spacer alone performs the function. Wright Decl., ¶ 37. Again, that conclusion is

6

consistent with the patent language itself:

7

A cylindrical spacer extends about the central annular
surfaces and supports the inner races of the bearing
assemblies so that the two treads turn independently about
the common spacer on their respective bearing assemblies.
Thus, the independently rotating treads are supported on the
same structural element . . .

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

‘203 Patent, col. 2:38-45.
The above-quoted language links support to a “singular” spacer rather than the
“plural” central annular surfaces. Additionally, the spacer is the one structural element
that is common to both tread assemblies since it holds both of them. Aubin’s proposal to
include the spacer assembled with the two hub inserts as the requisite support invokes
not one structural element, but an assembly of three elements, one spacer and two hub
inserts. One of skill in the art would know that a reference to a structural element refers
to one element, not three. Wright Decl., ¶ 34.
The doctrine of claim differentiation further supports Caster’s argument that the
spacer is the only common element. Under that doctrine, “the presence of a dependent
claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in
question is not present in the independent claim.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315.7 The two
independent claims asserted in the ‘203 Patent (Claims 1 and 4) do not require hub
inserts at all; in fact, the term hub insert does not appear until Dependent Claim 5. The
only difference between Claim 4 and Claim 5 is that Claim 5 adds hub inserts to go into
7

While Plaintiff argues that claim differentiation does not apply to means-plus-function claims like
this one, they cite no supporting authority. Caster, on the other hand, identifies case law finding the
doctrine is indeed applicable in this instance. Wenger Mfg., Inc. v. Coating Mach Sys., Inc., 239 F.3d
1225, 1233 (Fed Cir. 2001); Univ. of Pittsburgh of Commonwealth Sys. of Higher Educ. v. Varian Med.
Sys., Inc., 561 Fed. App’x 934, 942 (Fed, Cir. 2014) (rejecting argument that claim differentiation does not
apply to means-plus-function claims).

14

1

a hole in the spacer. If Claim 4 required the hub inserts, Claim 5 would be meaningless.

2

To read a claim term from a dependent claim (Claim 5) into an independent claim

3

(Claim 4) “renders the term redundant and offends principles of claim differentiation.”

4

Trebro Mfg., Inc. v. Firefly Equip., LLC, 748 F.3d 1159, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

5

Independent Claims 1 and 4 require the “means for supporting” but do not require hub

6

inserts.

7

Consequently, while the function portion of this claim language is undisputed as

8

“supporting said paid of tread (disk) assemblies on a common structural element in

9

independently rotatable fashion”, the means for that function is construed by the Court

10

as the spacer identified as item 22 on Fig. 5 to the ‘203 patent.

11

D.

12

Caster argues that this phrase, as used in the ‘203 patent, is indefinite. Patent

“closely spaced. . . relationship”

13

claims must provide “reasonable certainty” as to their scope, and are invalid if they fail to

14

do so. Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). “The scope of

15

claim language cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a

16

particular individual.” Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350

17

(Fed. Cir. 2005).

18

Here we have not just a “spaced relationship” but also a “closely spaced

19

relationship.” That raises the question of just how close the relationship needs to be to

20

fall within the term’s purview. As Dr. Wright noted, a “spaced relationship” is susceptible

21

to definition since for purposes of the present matter it would be a relationship in which

22

there is some space between the assemblies; they do not touch. But, as Wright goes on

23

to observe, once the term “closely” is inserted the relationship becomes impossible to

24

adequately define. Wright Decl., ¶ 41. According to Dr. Wright, “[o]ne of ordinary skill in

25

the art would not be able to define ‘closely spaced relationship’ to give the scope of the

26

claims meaning, because the phrase is too vague to know whether or not wheels are in

27

such a relationship.” Id. The Court believes Dr. Wright is correct.

28

///
15

1

Similarly uncertain terms have been found to be indefinite. See Interval Licensing

2

LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“unobtrusive manner”);

3

Innovative Display Techs. LLC v. Acer Inc., 2014 WL 4230037 at ** 25-26 (E.D. Tex.

4

Aug. 26, 2014 (“quite small”). Consequently, the Court concludes that the term “closely

5

spaced relationship” is invalid as indefinite.

6

E.

“adapted to be received with said axial opening of said spacer”

7

This language is not used in Independent Claims 1 and 4 of the ‘203 Patent.,

8

which do not require a hub insert that fits into the axial opening of the spacer. It is

9

nonetheless used within Dependent Claim 5 (as well as in subsequent Claims 6-15) as a

10

limiting term in describing hub inserts by requiring that such hub inserts be “adapted to

11

be received within said axial opening of said spacer.” While Aubin again maintains that

12

the term should simply be afforded its plain meaning, Caster contends that construction

13

on the Court’s part is necessary. For purposes of making the language more

14

understandable to a jury, the Court agrees that construction would be helpful.

15

According to Caster, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this term of

16

the ‘203 patent to mean “dimensioned to pair with the inner diameter of the axial opening

17

of said spacer.” Wright Decl., ¶¶ 45-47. Significantly, as Caster notes, this construction

18

is consistent with the ‘203 Patent, which notes that the “cylindrical spacer extends about

19

the surfaces of both hub inserts” (‘203 Patent, col. 3:41-42), with the hub inserts then

20

“pressed into the central opening of the spacer.” Id. at 4:40-41. That configuration can

21

result only when the dimensions are “paired” so as to fit together. Moreover, the term

22

“adapted to” means modified to a particular purpose. Caster’s proffered construction

23

more precisely shows that the hub insert must be modified so that the bore of the spacer

24

fits properly around it. In order to do this, the inserts must be dimensioned (by

25

machining or otherwise) to fit precisely to the axial opening (central hole) of the spacer.

26

Consequently, Caster’s proposed construction will be adopted.

27

///

28

///
16

1

F.

2
3

“threaded means for applying axially compressive force to opposed
ends of said axle to urge said pair of arms toward each other”

According to Aubin, this term is a means-plus function claim limitation, which

4

requires both a stated function and a corresponding structure from the patent

5

specification for proper construction. Aubin asserts that the function is clear from the

6

claim language and does not need construction: “to apply axially compressive force to

7

oppose ends of said axle to urge pair of arms toward each other”. With respect to the

8

“means” portion of the mean-plus-function analysis, however, Aubin urges the Court to

9

unequivocally identify the axle (36) and nut (39) depicted in Figure 5 of the ‘203 Patent

10

specification as the structure corresponding to the stated function.

11

Caster has not offered any differing interpretation, and the Court’s review of the

12

specification indicates that Aubin’s position is the correct one. Figure 5 makes it clear

13

that once the wheel assembly is secured and the axle is in place, the nut is tightened on

14

the axle by screwing it into the threaded section of the axle. ‘203 Patent, col. 3:57-60.

15

Consequently, the Court finds that the means for applying axial compression is indeed

16

use of the axle and nut.

17
18

CONCLUSION

19
20
21

For all the foregoing reasons, the Court construes the disputed claim terms as set
forth above.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: September 26, 2017

24
25
26
27
28
17