HVAC Technology LLC v. Southland Industries

Filing 46

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on June 2, 2016, re 27 . (psglc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

HVAC TECHNOLOGY LLC,
Plaintiff,

8

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

v.

9
10

(Re: Docket No. 27)

SOUTHLAND INDUSTRIES,
Defendant.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG

12
13

Largely unseen and unsung, heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems provide

14

warmth in the winter and relief in the summer in office buildings worldwide, including this very

15

courthouse. This dispute gives HVAC systems their moment: Plaintiff HVAC Technology LLC

16

alleges that Defendant Southland Industries infringes both U.S. Patent Nos. 7,444,731 and

17

7,478,761. The parties submitted ten terms and phrases in claims in the ’731 and ’761 patents for

18

construction, and the court issued a summary order last month.1 The court explained that a more

19

complete order would follow providing its reasoning.2 The court now does just that.

20

I.

21

This case is about methods of transporting HVAC piping structures and HVAC flow

22

control systems.
The ’731 patent was filed on Dec. 6, 2006 and issued on Nov. 4, 2008.3 The ’731 patent

23
24
1

See Docket Nos. 27, 38.

2

See Docket No. 38 at 2.

3

See Docket No. 31-3 at 1.

25
26
27
28

1
Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

claims a method for “transporting an HVAC pipe assembly” and a method for “supporting an

2

HVAC pipe assembly,” each requiring a bracket.4 Figure 1 illustrates a bracket “for mounting or

3

transporting pipe or conduit with a built-in handle.”5

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
Figure 1 shows a bracket 100 that “includes body 110, arms 120 with support guides

16
17

130.”6 “Base 150 connects to body 110 and allows for bracket 100 to be mounted to a surface,”

18

such as a duct.7

19

Claim 1 of the ’731 patent reads:

20

1. A method of transporting an HVAC pipe assembly, comprising:
securing the HVAC pipe assembly to a bracket;
mounting the bracket to an HVAC duct;
positioning the bracket proximate to a transporting surface;
loading the bracket to the transporting surface;

21
22
23
4

Id. at col. 5 ll. 5-15, 37-45.

5

Id. at col. 2 ll. 32-33.

6

Id. at col. 2 ll. 33-34.

7

Id. at col. 2 ll. 62-63.

24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

transporting the HVAC pipe assembly by transporting the transporting
surface;
maintaining alignment of the HVAC pipe assembly to the HVAC duct with
the bracket while transporting the HVAC pipe assembly.8

1
2

The ’761 patent was filed on Mar. 6, 2002 and issued on Jan. 20, 2009.9 The ’761 patent

3
4

claims a “ventilation flow control unit” and methods of “installing a ventilation flow control unit.”

5

Figure 1 illustrates a “ventilation flow control system 100” that includes “a supply flow control

6

unit 102, a return flow control unit 104, an exhaust flow control unit 106, a master controller 108,

7

one or more sensors 110, and a user interface 112.”10

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Claim 1 of the ’761 patent reads:

21

1. A ventilation flow control unit comprising:
a plenum;
a flow controller mounted to said plenum;
an isolation valve fixed to said plenum to selectively block the flow of air
between said plenum and said flow controller; and

22
23
24
8

Id. at col. 5 ll. 5-15.

9

See Docket No. 31-2.

25
26
27
28

10

Id. at sheet 1, col. 3 ll. 40-46,
3

Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

a flow sensor mounted to said plenum; and
wherein said plenum, said flow controller, said isolation valve, and said
flow sensor are preassembled to form said ventilation flow control
unit, thereby enabling said ventilation flow control unit to be
installed in an HVAC system as a single unit.11

1
2
3

After the Markman hearing, the court construed the disputed claim terms as follows:12

4
5
Patent Nos.

Claim Term/Phrase

Construction

’731

“bracket”

“a structure having a body, an arm coupled to the
body, a support guide located within the arm and
configured to provide support to a pipe, a base
coupled to the body and configured to attach to a
platform, the base further configured to provide
support to the body”

10

’761

“protection bracket”

plain and ordinary meaning

11

’731, ’761

“mounting (in/to) /
mounted (in/to/on)”

plain and ordinary meaning

’731

“loading . . . to”

“physically attaching . . . to, setting . . . in or on, or
engaging . . . to or with”

’761

“ventilation flow control
unit”

plain and ordinary meaning

’731

“HVAC pipe assembly”

plain and ordinary meaning

’761

“preassembled /
preassembling”

plain and ordinary meaning

’731

“positioning / positioning
. . . proximate to”

plain and ordinary meaning

’731

“transporting surface”

plain and ordinary meaning

’761

“riser”

plain and ordinary meaning

6
7
8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

II.

22

This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. The parties further

23
24

consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and

25
11

Id. at col. 7 ll. 7-18.

12

See Docket Nos. 37, 38.

26
27
28

4
Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).13
Eleven years after the Federal Circuit’s seminal Phillips decision,14 the canons of claim

2

construction are now well-known—if not perfectly understood—by both parties and courts. “To

4

construe a claim term, the trial court must determine the meaning of any disputed words from the

5

perspective of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of filing.”15 This requires a

6

careful review of the intrinsic record comprised of the claim terms, written description and

7

prosecution history of the patent.16 While claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and

8

customary meaning,” the claims themselves and the context in which the terms appear “provide

9

substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Indeed, a patent’s specification

10

“is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.”17 Claims “must be read in view of

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

the specification, of which they are part.”18 In some cases, “the specification may reveal a special

12

definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise

13

possess. In such cases, the inventor's lexicography governs.”19 Although the patent’s prosecution

14

history “lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction

15

purposes,” it “can often inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the

16

inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of

17
13

See Docket Nos. 8, 15.

14

See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).

15

Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Lear Corp., 516 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

18
19
20
16

21
22
23

See id. (“To construe a claim term, the trial court must determine the meaning of any disputed
words from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of filing.
Intrinsic evidence, that is the claims, written description, and the prosecution history of the patent,
is a more reliable guide to the meaning of a claim term than are extrinsic sources like technical
dictionaries, treatises, and expert testimony.”) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312).
17

24

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–15.

18

25

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995); see also Ultimax
Cement Mfg. Corp v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp., 587 F. 3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

26

19

27
28

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366
(Fed. Cir. 2002)).
5
Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.”20 The court also has

2

the discretion to consider extrinsic evidence, including dictionaries, learned treatises and

3

testimony from experts and inventors.21 Such evidence, however, is “less significant than the

4

intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.”22
III.

5

The court explains its construction of the ten disputed claim terms as follows.

6

A. Issue #1: “bracket”

7

CLAIM TERM #1

8
9

“bracket”
HVAC Technology’s Preferred Construction

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

plain and ordinary meaning

12
13
14

Southland’s Preferred Construction
“a structure (body, arms with support guides)
mounted to support at least one pipe”

CONSTRUCTION
“a structure having a body, an arm coupled to the body, a support guide located within the arm and
configured to provide support to a pipe, a base coupled to the body and configured to attach to a
platform, the base further configured to provide support to the body”

15
The term “bracket” appears in each independent claim of the ’731 patent (claims 1, 9 and

16
17

18). The specification describes the ’731 patent’s invention as

18

a method of transporting a pipe mounted within a plurality of brackets, each bracket
having a body, an arm coupled to the body, a support guide located within the arm
and configured to provide support to the pipe, a base coupled to the body and
configured to attach to a platform, the base further configured to provide support to
the body.23

19
20
21
20

22

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (internal quotations omitted).

21

23
24
25
26
27
28

See id. (“Although we have emphasized the importance of intrinsic evidence in claim
construction, we have also authorized district courts to rely on extrinsic evidence, which ‘consists
of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor
testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.’”) (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 980).
22

Id. (citing C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2004))
(internal quotations and additional citations omitted).
23

Docket No. 31-3 at col. 1 ll. 58-63.
6

Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

The court’s construction of “bracket” is consistent with the specification’s description of a bracket.

2

HVAC Technology raises four disputes as to the construction of “bracket.” First, HVAC

3

Technology contends that no construction is necessary because people are familiar with brackets

4

and the patentee did not manifest any intent to give a special definition of “bracket.”24 Second,

5

this construction does not include several common types of brackets and improperly imports

6

limitations from the specification and examples of brackets given in the specification.25 Third,

7

based on the intrinsic evidence, the construction must cover brackets that are flat and lack any

8

bend.26 Fourth, the construction does not cover the protection bracket disclosed in the ’761

9

patent.27
The patent itself belies HVAC Technology’s first argument: the patentee plainly

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

manifested an intent to give a special definition of “bracket”—both the abstract and the

12

specification define the brackets used in the invention.28 The specification describes the brackets

13

used in the invention as

14

having a body, an arm coupled to the body, a support guide located within the arm
and configured to provide support to the pipe, a base coupled to the body and
configured to attach to a platform, the base further configured to provide support to
the body.29

15
16

By describing the characteristics of the brackets used in the invention, the patentee gave the claim
17
18

term “a special definition . . . that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess.” The
court thus defers to the inventor’s lexicography, which governs.30 Both an ordinary person and a

19
20

25

See Docket No. 28 at 5; Docket No. 32 at 8-9.

26

See Docket No. 28 at 7-8; Docket No. 32 at 9-10.
See Docket No. 32 at 7-8.

28

See Docket No. 31-3 at abstract, col. 1 ll. 58-66.

29

22

See Docket No. 28 at 5; Docket No. 32 at 6-7.

27

21

24

Id. at col. 1 ll. 58-63.

30

See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (citing CCS Fitness, Inc., 288 F.3d at 1366).

23
24
25
26
27
28

7
Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

POSITA may be “familiar with all manner of brackets in use around the house”31—but the

2

claimed invention does not involve all manner of brackets in the context of household use, but

3

rather covers use of a bracket with certain characteristics in the specific context of transporting an

4

HVAC pipe assembly. The patentee defined “bracket” to have certain characteristics, and so the

5

term must be construed according to the definition given to it by the patentee.
HVAC Technology’s second argument relies on two false assumptions: first, that the

6
7

construction of “bracket” must encompass all types of brackets, and second, that it is improper to

8

consider the specification in construing “bracket.” HVAC Technology describes several brackets

9

used in plumbing and home use—for example, to permanently secure objects to walls—and
argues that the construction of “bracket” must cover these brackets.32 HVAC Technology

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

provides no explanation of how these brackets are relevant to the ’731 patent’s bracket, which has

12

certain characteristics and is used not for permanently securing objects to walls, but for

13

transporting and supporting HVAC pipe assemblies. HVAC Technology also provides no

14

authority for its position that the construction of “bracket” must be so broad as to cover brackets

15

that are not relevant to the purpose of the patent’s claimed invention. The specification gave a

16

particular definition of bracket, and Figure 2 of the ’731 patent supports this definition of

17

“bracket.” It depicts a “[b]racket 200,” which “includes body 210, arms 220 with support guides

18

230. . . . Base 250 connects to body 210.”33 Contrary to HVAC Technology’s assertion, it is

19

entirely proper, and indeed necessary, for the court to look to the specification, which “is always

20

highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.”34
HVAC Technology’s third argument is that based on the intrinsic evidence, the

21
22
23
31

Docket No. 28 at 4.

32

See Docket No. 28 at 5; Docket No. 32 at 8-9.

33

Id. at col. 3 ll. 16-32.

34

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–15.

24
25
26
27
28

8
Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

construction must cover brackets that are flat and lack any bend.35 HVAC Technology points to

2

Figs. 18 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,951,324, the entire disclosures of which the ’731 patent

3

incorporates by reference.36 The construction adopted by the court does not require brackets to

4

have a bend, L-shaped or otherwise. For example, Fig. 2 of the ’731 patent depicts one

5

embodiment of a bracket that is flat and has a body 210, arms 220 with support guides 230 and a

6

base 250 that is configured to allow the bracket to be attached to a surface37:

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
HVAC Technology’s fourth argument, that the construction must cover the “protection

17
18

bracket” disclosed in the ’761 patent,38 also lacks merit. The ’731 and ’761 patents do not

19

incorporate each other by reference and are not related, and so there is no reason that the term

20

“bracket” in the ’731 patent must cover the term “protection bracket” in the ’761 patent.

21
22
23
35

See Docket No. 28 at 7-8; Docket No. 32 at 9-10.

36

See Docket No. 31-3 at col. 1 ll. 7-12; Docket No. 28 at 7-8.

37

Docket No. 31-3 at Fig. 2, col. 3:16-32.

38

See Docket No. 32 at 7-8.

24
25
26
27
28

9
Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

CLAIM TERM #2

1
2

“protection bracket”

3

HVAC Technology’s Preferred Construction

4

plain and ordinary meaning

5

“a base with an opening to allow a valve stem
to pass through it, as well as a pair of risers
which extend upward to protect the valve”
CONSTRUCTION

6
7

Southland’s Preferred Construction

plain and ordinary meaning
The term “protection bracket” appears in dependent claims 11, 12 and 23 of the ’761

9

patent. Claim 11 claims a “ventilation flow control unit according to claim 8, further comprising a

10

protection bracket mounted to protect said automatic valve from damage during transportation and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

installation of said ventilation flow control unit.”39 Claim 12 limits the protection bracket in claim

12

11 as including “a base defining an opening to facilitate the passage of a valve stem; a first riser

13

extending from a first edge of said base; and a second riser extending from a second edge of said

14

base opposite said first edge.40 Claim 23 claims a “method of installing a ventilation flow control

15

unit according to claim 21, wherein said step of mounting an automatic valve in said fluid line

16

includes mounting a protective bracket around said automatic valve.”41

17

Southland argues that the plain and ordinary meaning is too broad and that in the context

18

of the ’761 patent, the protection bracket protects valves from being physically damaged by use of

19

risers that extend farther away from the duct than the valves incorporated into the pipe assembly

20

do, and so this limitation must be reflected in the construction.42 Neither the claims nor the

21

specification, however, supports Southland’s proposed construction. “Protection bracket” appears

22
23
39

Docket No. 31-2 at col. 7 ll. 59-62.

40

Id. at col. 7 ll. 63-col. 8 ll. 2.

41

Id. at col. 8 ll. 60-63.

42

See Docket No. 31 at 5-6.

24
25
26
27
28

10
Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

in claims 11 and 23, which do not provide any description or limitation of the protection bracket’s

2

characteristics or the means by which it functions. Claim 12 does limit “protection bracket” with

3

limitations similar to Southland’s proposed construction, but it is a dependent claim of claim 11.

4

The “protection bracket” in claims 11 and 23 logically must have a broader meaning than that

5

disclosed by claim 12.
Furthermore, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” and

6
7

the ’761 patent’s specification does not provide guidance on the meaning of “protection bracket.”

8

Fig. 6 depicts a protection bracket 226 that has a base portion 602 that defines an aperture 606 for

9

the passage of an automatic stem valve, and that also has a pair of risers 60443:

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

The specification states, however, that a POSITA “will recognize . . . that the invention may be

18

practiced apart from [the] specific details” set forth in the description and figures.44 Fig. 6 depicts

19

one embodiment of a protection bracket, such as that claimed by claim 12, but the specification

20

does not reveal “an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor.”45

21
22
23
24
43

See Docket No. 31-2 at Fig. 6, col. 6 ll. 31-38.

44

Id. at col. 3 ll. 34-35.

45

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.

25
26
27
28

11
Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

CLAIM TERM #3

1
2

“mounting (in/to) / mounted (in/to/on)”

3

HVAC Technology’s Preferred Construction

4

plain and ordinary meaning

5
6

“Mount” means physically attach.
“Mounting (in/to)” means physically attaching.
“Mounted (in/to/on)” means physically
attached.
CONSTRUCTION

7
8

Southland’s Preferred Construction

plain and ordinary meaning

9

The term “mounting (in/to) / mounted (in/to/on)” appears in claims 1, 9 and 20 of the ’731
patent and claims 1, 2, 7-11, 15-17, 21-29, 31, 33-35, 39 and 41-46 of the ’761 patent. The

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

specification of the ’731 patent provides examples of “mounting” and states that a bracket 100

12

may be “mounted in any secure manner, for example welded, screwed, and bolted.”46 The

13

specification of the ’761 patent does not address the definition of “mounting (in/to) / mounted

14

(in/to/on).” Neither specification describes “mounting” as “attaching.” Southland argues that the

15

term should be construed as “attach,” “attaching” or “attached,” but does not explain why. The

16

claim term thus is given its plain and ordinary meaning.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

46

Docket No. 31-3 at col. 2 ll. 63-65.
12

Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

CLAIM TERM #4

1
2

“loading to”

3

HVAC Technology’s Preferred Construction

4

“loading . . . to” means setting a first object on
a second object, or attaching a first object to a
second object, or hanging a first object from a
second object, or engaging a first object with a
second object, or containing a first object within
a second object, or having a second object stick
into a hole in a first object, or having a second
“Loading . . . to” means physically attaching,
object somehow grasp a first object, such that if setting, or engaging to.
the second object is moved then the first object
will also be moved, and therefore will be
transported or moved along with the second
object. The phrase “loading . . . to” does not
require that the first object be attached to the
second object.

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Southland’s Preferred Construction

CONSTRUCTION

12
physically attaching . . . to, setting . . . in or on, or engaging . . . to or with
13
The term “loading to” appears in claim 1, 9 and 18 of the ’731 patent. Independent claims

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

1 and 18 claim a “method of transporting an HVAC pipe assembly, comprising: . . . loading the
bracket to the transporting surface.”47 Independent claim 9 similarly claims a “method of
supporting an HVAC pipe assembly, comprising: . . . loading the bracket to the transporting
surface.”48 Claim 8, which is a dependent claim of claim 1, and claim 19, which is a dependent
claim of claim 18, state that the “transporting surface comprises a member selected from the group
consisting of a human hand, a forklift, a lifting device, a shipping crate, a box, and a flatbed
truck.”49 Because independent claims 1, 9 and 18 use the language “loading the bracket to the
transporting surface,” and dependent claims specifically define the “transporting surface” as a
human hand, a forklift, a lifting device, a shipping crate, a box and a flatbed truck, the construction

24
47

Docket No. 31-3 at col. 5 ll. 5-15, col. 6 at ll. 27-37.

48

Id. at col. 5 ll. 37-45.

49

Id. at col. 5 ll. 33-36, col. 6 ll. 38-41.

25
26
27
28

13
Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

of “loading . . . to” must encompass loading a bracket to each of those transporting surfaces.
HVAC Technology argues that Southland’s proposed construction does not make it clear

2
3

that putting something in a box or lifting something by a handle is covered by the term. The

4

court’s construction resolves these concerns, encompasses all of the various “transporting

5

surfaces” disclosed in claims 8 and 19 and takes into consideration the fact that the invention is

6

directed toward components of HVAC systems.

7
CLAIM TERM #5

8
9

“ventilation flow control unit”
HVAC Technology’s Preferred Construction

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

plain and ordinary meaning

12
13
14
15

Southland’s Preferred Construction
“Ventilation flow control unit” means a section
of a HVAC system made up of a plenum, a
flow control sensor, a flow controller (e.g.,
damper) and optionally a heating coil

CONSTRUCTION
plain and ordinary meaning

16

The term “ventilation flow control unit” appears in independent claims 1, 8, 16, 21, 25, 27,

17

42 and 44 of the ’761 patent, and several dependent claims. Claims 1, 8, 16 and 44 each claim a

18

“ventilation flow control unit comprising” various elements and claims 21, 25, 27 and 42 each

19

claim a method of “installing a ventilation flow control unit.”50

20

Southland argues that the claims define the term “ventilation flow control unit” and

21

enumerate the component parts that are needed to make up a “ventilation flow control unit.”51

22

This is precisely why the term needs no construction. “Ventilation flow control unit” appears in

23

the preamble of each independent claim, and “a preamble is not limiting ‘where a patentee defines

24
25
26
27
28

50

See Docket No. 31-2 at col. 7 ll. 7-18, 38-52, col. 8 ll. 14-31, 46-54, col. 9 ll. 1-10, 16-25, col.
10 ll. 31-38, 43-57.
51

Docket No. 31 at 9-10.
14

Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose

2

or intended use for the invention.’”52 The patentee defined a structurally complete invention in the

3

claim body of claims 1, 8, 16 and 44 by listing the limiting components of the ventilation flow

4

control unit, and so the preamble is not limiting.

5
CLAIM TERM #6

6
7

“HVAC pipe assembly”

8

HVAC Technology’s Preferred Construction

9

plain and ordinary meaning

Southland’s Preferred Construction
“HVAC pipe assembly” means a portion of an
HVAC system which includes ducts and pipes

10

CONSTRUCTION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

plain and ordinary meaning

13
14

The term “HVAC pipe assembly” appears in independent claims 1, 9 and 18 and
dependent claims 2, 10 and 11 of the ’731 patent.

15

Southland argues that the word “HVAC” modifies the phrase “pipe assembly,” and so the

16

term must include a duct, because a pipe assembly that is not attached to a duct is a mere pipe

17

assembly and not an HVAC pipe assembly.53 Southland refers to Fig. 4 of the ’731 patent, which

18

includes a duct 420. There is no basis for Southland’s position, however, because the

19

specification does not limit “HVAC pipe assembly” to include a duct. Fig. 4 and its

20

accompanying description make this clear. Fig. 4 illustrates

21

two brackets supporting a pipe assembly ready for transport. . . . In FIG. 4, pipe
assemblies 400 include 2 pipes and hardware, supporting by brackets 410. . . . Also
illustrated . . . is duct 420, which may be transported with pipe assemblies 400. . . .
[I]f pipe assemblies 400 are not attached to duct 420 then they may be transported
on the base of brackets 410.54

22
23
24
52

Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc., 749 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

53

See Docket No. 31 at 10.

54

Docket No. 31-3 at col. 4 ll. 1-29 (emphasis added).

25
26
27
28

15
Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

Southland is correct that Fig. 4 includes a duct 420, but Fig. 4 depicts pipe assemblies as separate

2

from ducts. Fig. 4 explicitly contemplates that a pipe assembly may be either attached or not

3

attached to a duct, and even if it is not attached, it still is a pipe assembly.

4
CLAIM TERM #7

5
6

“preassembled / preassembling”

7

HVAC Technology’s Preferred Construction

8

plain and ordinary meaning

9

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

“Preassembled” means assembled before being
installed as a unit
“Preassembling” means assembling before
being installed as a unit

10

12

Southland’s Preferred Construction

CONSTRUCTION
plain and ordinary meaning

13
The term “preassembled / preassembling” appears in independent claims 1, 8, 16, 21, 25,

14
15

27, 42 and 44 of the ’761 patent and dependent claims 22, 24, 26 and 28-33.
Southland argues that the purpose of the patent is the invention of preassembled ventilation

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

flow control units, methods for the transport of the units and their installation as a unit at the
installation site.55 Independent claims 1, 8, 16 and 44, which each claim a ventilation flow control
unit comprising various components, claim that the components are “preassembled to form said
ventilation flow control unit, thereby enabling said ventilation flow control unit to be installed in
an HVAC system as a single unit.”56 In these claims, the preassembly of the ventilation flow
control unit enables the unit to be installed—but this does not require that installation actually
occur. Southland’s proposed construction thus unduly narrows the claim term and imposes
limitations not found in the patent claims. Independent claims 21, 25, 27 and 42 each claim a

25
55

See Docket No. 31 at 12.

56

Docket No. 31-2 at col. 7 ll. 15-19, 49-51, col. 8 ll. 28-31, col. 9 ll. 54-56.

26
27
28

16
Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

“method of installing a ventilation flow control unit, comprising: preassembling said flow control

2

unit . . . and installing said preassembled flow control unit.”57 These claims explicitly require

3

installation of the preassembled ventilation flow control unit, rendering Southland’s proposed

4

construction redundant.

5
CLAIM TERM #8

6
7

“positioning / positioning . . . proximate to”

8

HVAC Technology’s Preferred Construction

9

plain and ordinary meaning

Southland’s Preferred Construction
“Positioning . . . proximate to” means moving
the bracket from where it was fabricated to an
area close to the transportation surface

10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

CONSTRUCTION
12
plain and ordinary meaning
13
The term “positioning / positioning . . . proximate to” appears in independent claims 1, 9

14
15
16
17
18

and 18 of the ’731 patent. Claims 1 and 18 claim a “method of transporting an HVAC pipe
assembly, comprising: . . . positioning the bracket proximate to a transporting surface,” and claim
9 claims a “method of supporting an HVAC pipe assembly, comprising: . . . positioning the
bracket proximate to a transporting surface.”58
Southland argues that “proximate” is not a common word and that its proposed

19
20
21
22

construction simply means “a position close to the transporting surface.”59 Southland’s proposed
construction, however, adds two limitations: moving the bracket “from where it was fabricated”
and moving it “to an area close to the transportation surface.”60 Nothing in the claims or

23
57

Id. at col. 8 ll. 46-53, col. 9 ll. 1-9, 15-25, col. 10. 31-38.

58

Docket No. 31-3 at col. 5 ll. 5-15, 37-45, col. 6 ll. 27-37.

59

Docket No. 31 at 13.

60

Id. at 12.

24
25
26
27
28

17
Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

specification requires these limitations and Southland does not identify any intrinsic evidence

2

supporting these limitations.

3
CLAIM TERM #9

4
5

“transporting surface”

6

HVAC Technology’s Preferred Construction

7

plain and ordinary meaning

Southland’s Preferred Construction
“Transporting surface” means any physical
surface on or by which the unit is moved to the
installation site

8
9

CONSTRUCTION
10
plain and ordinary meaning
United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
The term “transporting surface” appears in independent claims 1, 9 and 18 and dependent

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

claims 8, 17 and 19 of the ’731 patent. Claims 1 and 18 claim a “method of transporting an
HVAC pipe assembly” and claim 9 claims a “method of supporting an HVAC pipe assembly.”61
Claims 1, 9 and 18 comprise “positioning the bracket proximate to a transporting surface; loading
the bracket to the transporting surface” and claims 1 and 18 include a further limitation of
“transporting the HVAC pipe assembly by transporting the transporting surface.”62 Claims 8, 17
and 19 each claim the methods according to claims 1, 9 and 18, respectively, “wherein the
transporting surface comprises a member selected from the group consisting of a human hand, a
forklift, a lifting device, a shipping crate, a box, and a flatbed truck.”63
Southland argues that the construction of “transporting surface” must include the limitation

21
22

that the HVAC pipe assembly be moved to an installation site.64 Southland does not identify any

23
61

Docket No. 31-3 at col. 5 ll. 5-15, 37-45, col. 6 ll. 27-37.

62

Id.

63

Id. at col. 5 ll. 33-36, col. 5 ll. 22-26, 38-41.

64

see Docket No. 31 at 13-14.

24
25
26
27
28

18
Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

intrinsic evidence supporting these limitations. The claimed inventions are methods of

2

transporting and supporting the HVAC pipe assembly, and neither the claims nor the specification

3

restricts to where the HVAC pipe assembly is being transported.

4
CLAIM TERM #10

5
6

“riser”

7

HVAC Technology’s Preferred Construction

8

plain and ordinary meaning

9

Southland’s Preferred Construction
“Riser” means a part of a protective bracket
which extends up from the edge of the bracket’s
base to protect the pipe(s)

10
CONSTRUCTION
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

plain and ordinary meaning
12
The term “riser” appears in claim 12 of the ’761 patent, which claims a ventilation flow

13
14
15
16
17

control unit comprising a protection bracket, “wherein said protection bracket includes: a base
defining an opening to facilitate the passage of a valve stem; a first riser extending from a first
edge of said base; and a second riser extending from a second edge of said base opposite said first
edge.”65
Southland argues that its proposed construction takes the context of the invention into

18
19
20
21
22
23

account and uses plain and ordinary language that the jury can understand.66 But riser is not a
complicated term; it is an ordinary English word. Moreover, the claim itself includes Southland’s
proposed limitations, by limiting the protection bracket as including “a first riser extending from a
first edge” and “a second riser extending from a second edge.” In light of the limitations already
present in the claim, Southland’s proposed construction is unnecessary.

24
25
65

Docket No. 31-2 at col. 7 ll. 63-67, col. 8 ll. 1-2.

66

See Docket No. 31 at 14.

26
27
28

19
Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

SO ORDERED.

2

Dated: June 2, 2016
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

20
Case No. 5:15-cv-02934-PSG
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER