Imagine That International, Inc. v. CS Tech US et al

Filing 32

ORDER Construing Disputed Claim Terms of U.S. Patent No. 8,720,386. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 4/4/16.(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

IMAGINE THAT INTERNATIONAL,
INC., a California corporation dba ALL
FOUR PAWS,

13

Case No.: 15-cv-1558-GPC-KSC
ORDER CONSTRUING DISPUTED
CLAIM TERMS OF U.S. PATENT
NO. 8,720,386

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

CS TECH US, a Nevada corporation dba
ZenPet and ZenPetUSA.com, CS TECH
MEXICO, S.A. de C.V., a foreign
corporation, CHAD GIBSON, an
individual, JEN BARRELLI, an
individual, HECTOR D. CAMPA, an
individual, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Defendants.
In this patent infringement action, the parties seek construction of ten sets of claim
terms found in U.S. Patent No. 8.720,386. This matter was heard on April 1, 2016. ECF
No. 31. Having considered the moving papers and oral argument on the motion, the Court
construes the terms as follows.
BACKGROUND

26

Plaintiff Imagine That International, Inc., dba All Four Paws, (“Plaintiff”) is the

27

holder of two regular patents and one design patent on flexible pet protective collars: (1)

28
1
15-cv-1558-GPC-KSC

1

U.S. Patent No. 8,042,494 (the “’494 patent”) titled “pet protective collar” which discloses

2

a “custom fittable collar for an animal, useful to prevent the animal from contacting injured

3

areas on the body, thus promoting healing of wounds”; (2) U.S. Patent No. 8,720,386 (the

4

“’386 patent”) titled “pet protective collar with stays” which discloses a “flexible pet

5

protective collar having stays formed of a more rigid material than flexible sheets of the

6

collar, the stays being disposed inside channels located at seams of the collar”; and (3) U.S.

7

Design Patent No. 705,502 (the “D’502 patent”) which discloses an “ornamental design

8

for a pet protective collar.” Compl. ¶ 15, ECF No. 1; Compl. Exs. 1–3, ECF No. 1-2.

9

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ CS Tech US, dba ZenPet and ZenPetAUSA.com (“CS

10

Tech”), CS Tech Mexico S.A. de C.V. (“CS Tech Mexico”), Chad Gibson (“Chad

11

Gibson”), Jen Barrelli (“Barrelli”), and Hector D. Campa (“Campa”) (collectively,

12

“Defendants”) ProCone/ZenCone products infringe all three patents. Compl. ¶ 103.

13

The parties have submitted competing constructions for ten sets of claim terms found

14

in the ‘386 patent. See Joint Hearing Statement, ECF No. 23; Pl. Brief, ECF No. 28; Def.

15

Brief, ECF No. 27; Pl. Resp., ECF No. 30; Def. Resp., ECF No. 29.

16

LEGAL STANDARD

17

Claim construction is a matter of law to be determined by the court. Markman v.

18

Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d 517 U.S.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

370 (1996). Claims are to be construed in a manner that “stays true to the claim language
and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention.” Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
To construe disputed terms, the Court first looks to the claims themselves.
Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). Generally, claim language is given its “ordinary and customary meaning,”
defined as “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
question at the time of the invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. In cases where the
“ordinary and customary meaning” is clear, claim construction involves “little more than

27
28
2
15-cv-1558-GPC-KSC

1

the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Id. at

2

1314.

3

In cases where a term’s meaning would not be apparent to a person of ordinary skill

4

in the art at the time of the invention, the Court looks to other sources to construe the term.

5

Id. When looking at sources other than claim language, the Court considers the context in

6

which the term appears. Id. at 1313. The specification is also “‘always highly relevant’”

7

and “‘[u]sually [] dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’”

8

Id. at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir.

9

1996)). Where the inventor gives a term a special meaning, “the inventor’s lexicography

10

governs.” Id. at 1316. Where the inventor specifically disclaims a certain scope in the

11

specification, that disclaimer is similarly dispositive. Id.

12

The Court may also look to the patent’s prosecution history, when it is admitted into

13

evidence, which includes of the complete record of proceedings before the USPTO, as well

14

as cited prior art references. Id. at 1317. Finally, the Court may consider extrinsic evidence

15

such as “expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Markman, 52

16

F.3d at 980 (internal citations omitted). However, extrinsic evidence is “less significant

17

than the intrinsic record” and “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in

18

determining how to read claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317–18 (internal quotation

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

marks and citation omitted).
Finally, “terms do not need to be construed [where] they are neither unfamiliar to
the jury, confusing to the jury, nor affected by the specification or prosecution history.”
See Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 528 F.
Supp. 2d 967, 976 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (citing United States Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Claim construction is a matter of resolution of
disputed meanings and technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to explain what the
patentee covered by the claims, for use in the determination of infringement. It is not an
obligatory exercise in redundancy.”)).
//

28
3
15-cv-1558-GPC-KSC

1

DISCUSSION

2

The ’386 patent, entitled “pet protective collar with stays,” discloses a “flexible pet

3

protective collar having stays formed of a more rigid material than flexible sheets of the

4

collar, the stays being disposed inside channels located at seams of the collar.” ’386 Patent

5

Abstract, Compl. Ex. 2. The application for the ‘386 patent was filed on June 18, 2012, and

6

the patent was issued on May 13, 2014. The parties dispute ten terms in the ’386 patent. In

7

each case, Plaintiff offers a proposed construction, whereas Defendants contend that the

8

terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. See Joint Hearing Statement 1–2.

9

The disputed terms are as follows:

10

1. “flexible assembly” (Claims 9 & 17)

11

2. “arcuate” (Claims 9, 10, & 17)

12

3. “stay” (Claims 9, 10, & 17)

13

4. “stiffer than that of the flexible assembly” (Claims 9 & 17)

14

5. “layered assembly” (Claim 17)

15

6. “flexible substantially non-resilient material” (Claim 17)

16

7. “securing together” (Claim 17)

17

8. “closure effective to secure the first and second ends of the protective collar”

18

(Claim 17)
9. “closed configuration” (Claim 17)

19

10. “truncated cone shape” (Claim 17)

20

The court will examine each claim term in turn.

21
22
23
24
25

1. “flexible assembly”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

An assembly or combination of
materials or components such as sheets
capable of bending easily.

Plain and ordinary meaning.

The term “flexible assembly” appears in claims 9 and 17 of the ’386 patent.

26
27

//

28

//
4
15-cv-1558-GPC-KSC

1

a. Claim Language

2

The claims themselves do not define the term “flexible assembly” as a whole. Claim

3

9 describes “a flexible assembly having an outer arcuate edge and an inner arcuate edge

4

and a first end and a second end,” ’386 Patent 12:50–51, with “at least one stay connected

5

to the assembly and extending in a direction between the inner and outer arcuate edges, the

6

stay formed of a material stiffer than that of the flexible assembly,” id. at 12:52–55. Claim

7

17 describes a “layered assembly” with “at least one stay connected to the assembly and

8

extending in a direction between the inner and outer arcuate edges, the stay formed of a

9

material stiffer than that of the flexible assembly.” Id. at 14:8–11.

10

b. Specification

11

The abstract describes the invention as “[a] flexible pet protective collar having stays

12

formed of a more rigid material than flexible sheets of the collar . . . .” ’386 Patent Abstract.

13

The specification provides as one preferred embodiment a protective collar that “comprises

14

a first exterior sheet 10 comprising a flexible material . . . [with a] second exterior sheet 20

15

also compris[ing] a flexible material.” Id. at 6:29–35. It goes on to state that in this

16

preferred embodiment, “[i]t is preferred that the first and second exterior sheets 10 and 20

17

be quite flexible with little resilience and resistance to bending, while the padding layer

18

[in-between] be more resilient such that when they are formed into a unit and applied to an

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

animal in a cone shape it will be sufficiently rigid to maintain its cone configuration yet
will easily give when hit or pushed or bent and resilient enough to recover its cone shape.”
Id. at 7:2–10.
c. Prosecution History
Plaintiff argues that the term “flexible” requires construction because during the
patent examination, the Patent Examiner rejected claims 1–9, 19, and 20 for indefiniteness,
stating that “[i]t is confusing and seems contradictory as to how the sheets can be both
‘flexible’ and ‘non-resilient’ when flexibility necessarily means something is resilient.” Pl.
Br., Ex. C, AFP000353. The patentee traversed the rejection, explaining that “[t]he sheet
is flexible so it is able to fold without breaking, however it is non-resilient which means it

28
5
15-cv-1558-GPC-KSC

1

cannot spring back if it stretched. These terms are not necessarily inconsistent.” Id. at

2

AFP000348.

3

The Court declines to construe the specific term “flexible.” The term “flexible”

4

appears to be used in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning in the specification.

5

See Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG v. Biocorp, Inc., 249 F.3d

6

1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (declining to construe the term “melting” when the term did

7

not appear to depart from its ordinary meaning). While one preferred embodiment mentions

8

“little . . . resistance to bending” as an aspect of the exterior sheets, in general the

9

specification does not support Plaintiff’s proposed addition of the attribute of “bending

10

easily” to the term “flexible assembly.” To the extent that there was confusion in the

11

prosecution history, it appears to be related to the use of the specialized use of the term

12

“non-resilient” in the specification, a term the Court construes below.

13

d. Extrinsic Evidence

14

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s proposed construction of “assembly” is redundant

15

because it includes the word “assembly” within it. The term is not defined within the claim

16

language or the specification. Thus, the Court turns to extrinsic evidence for guidance.

17

“Assembly” is a commonly construed term. The Federal Circuit has interpreted assembly

18

to mean “a collection of parts so assembled as to form a . . . structure . . . .” Kegel Co. v.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

AMF Bowling, Inc., 127 F.3d 1420, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, the Court finds that it is only necessary to construe “assembly” in the
term “flexible assembly.” The Court construes the term “flexible assembly” to mean “a
flexible collection of parts so assembled as to form a structure.”
2. “arcuate”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Curved or arched.

Plain and ordinary meaning.

The term “arcuate” appears in claims 9, 10, and 17 of the ’386 patent.

26
27
28

///
///
6
15-cv-1558-GPC-KSC

1

a. Claim Language

2
3

The claims themselves suggest that the term “arcuate” is associated with the concept
of “circular arcs.”

4

Claim 9 describes “a flexible assembly having an outer arcuate edge and an inner

5

arcuate edge and a first end and a second end” with “at least one stay connected to the

6

assembly and extending in a direction between the inner and outer arcuate edges” and “a

7

plurality of channels each containing a stay, the channels at least partially extending

8

between the inner arcuate edge and the outer arcuate edge of the assembly.” ’386 Patent

9

12:50–58. Claim 10 describes “a plurality of radial stitching lines at least partially

10

extending between the inner arcuate edge and the outer arcuate edge of the assembly.” Id.

11

at 12:60–62. Claim 17 describes “a first sheet comprising a flexible substantially non-

12

resilient material having inner and outer arcuate edges extending between a first and second

13

end of the first sheet, the inner and outer arcuate edges comprising circular arcs, wherein

14

the outer arcuate edge has a substantially greater radius than the inner edge . . . wherein

15

when assembled, the first and second sheets form the layered assembly having an outer

16

arcuate edge and an inner arcuate edge and a first end and a second end; at least one stay

17

connected to the assembly and extending in a direction between the inner and outer arcuate

18

edges . . . the channels at least partially extending between the inner arcuate edge and the

19
20
21

outer arcuate edge of the assembly; the first sheet and the second sheet formed into the
assembly by securing together the outer arcuate edges and the inner arcuate edges and the
first and second ends of the first and second sheets.” Id. at 13:22–14:19.
b. Specification

22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff argues that the specification’s description of the “inner and outer arcuate
edges comprising singular circular arcs,” id. at 2:56–57, as well as the diagrams support
Plaintiff’s proposed construction of “curved or arched.”
///
///
///

28
7
15-cv-1558-GPC-KSC

1

c. Extrinsic Evidence

2

Webster’s Third International Dictionary defines “arcuate” as “curved like a bow.”

3

Similarly, the American Heritage Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines “arcuate” as “[h]aving

4

the form of a bow; curved.” The intrinsic and extrinsic evidence support construing

5

“arcuate” to have its plain and ordinary meaning: “curved.”

6

3. “stay”

7

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

8

A stiffener.

Plain and ordinary meaning.

9
10

The term “stay” appears in claims 9, 10, and 17 of the ’386 patent.
a. Claim Language

11

The claims themselves do not define the term “stay.” However, the claims

12

themselves suggest that the “stays” described have certain concrete qualities. Namely,

13

Claim 9 describes “at least one stay connected to the assembly and extending in a direction

14

between the inner and outer arcuate edges, the stay formed of a material stiffer than that of

15

the flexible assembly,” as well as “a plurality of channels each containing a stay.” Id. at

16

12:52–56. Claim 10 describes “at least one channel disposed along a radial stitching line,

17

the channel being configured to house the stay.” Id. at 12:66–67. Claim 17 describes “at

18

least one stay connected to the assembly and extending in a direction between the inner

19

and outer arcuate edges, the stay formed of a material stiffer than that of the flexible

20

assembly; a plurality of channels each containing a stay.” Id. at 14:8–12.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

b. Specification
The specification describes as a preferred embodiment “[t]he stays 150 . . . are more
rigid than the material of the collar 10, are preferably somewhat bendable. For example,
the material of the collar 10 may be made of nylon and the stays 150 may be made of
bendable plastic. The stays, when connected to the collar have the effect of stiffening the
overall shape of the collar and making it more difficult for the collar to be bent. Optionally,
the stays are removable.” Id. at 10:4–11. Contrasting the invention with prior art, the
specification explains that other soft collars “could conceivably be bent backwards from
8
15-cv-1558-GPC-KSC

1

the head, [making it] possible for an animal to paw at injuries in the head area,” whereas

2

in the “pet protective collar with stays” the “stay is effective to stiffen the overall shape of

3

the collar.” Id. at 2:41–43; 3:1–2.

4

c. Extrinsic Evidence

5

Webster’s Third International Dictionary provides as one definition of “stay” “a thin

6

film strip (as of plastic) used for stiffening a garment or part (as a shirt collar). Similarly,

7

the American Heritage Dictionary, Fifth Edition, provides as one definition of “stay” “[a]

8

strip of bone, plastic, or metal, used to stiffen a garment or part, such as a corset or shirt

9

collar.

10

Plaintiff argues that the Court should construe the term “stay” because there are other

11

common understandings of the word, such as its use as a verb. However, the Court finds

12

that it is plain that the word “stay” is used as a noun and not a verb in the claim. In addition,

13

the specific use of the word “stay” is defined by the surrounding claim language that

14

describes the characteristics of the stays as used in the collar. Accordingly, the Court

15

construes “stay” to have its plain and ordinary meaning.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

4. “stiffer than that of the flexible assembly”
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

More rigid and difficult to bend than the Plain and ordinary meaning.
flexible assembly for preventing the
flexible assembly from folding.
The term “stiffer than that of the flexible assembly” appears in claims 9 and 17 of
the ’386 patent.
a. Claim Language

23

Claim 9 describes “at least one stay connected to the assembly and extending in a

24

direction between the inner and outer arcuate edges, the stay formed of a material stiffer

25

than that of the flexible assembly.” Id. at 12:52–55. Claim 17 describes “at least one stay

26

connected to the assembly and extending in a direction between the inner and outer arcuate

27

edges, the stay formed of a material stiffer than that of the flexible assembly.”

28
9
15-cv-1558-GPC-KSC

1

The Court finds that no construction is necessary because the claim language has a

2

plain and ordinary meaning. See, e.g., Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d

3

1283, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (where “the plain and ordinary meaning of the disputed claim

4

language is clear,” no construction is required).

5

5. “layered assembly”

6

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

7

An assembly or combination of
materials or components comprising
more than one layer or sheet.

Plain and ordinary meaning.

8
9

The term “layered assembly” appears in claim 17 of the ’386 patent.

10

a. Claim Language

11

Claim 17 describes “[a] protective collar effective as a veterinary restraint when

12

fitted on an animal, the protective collar comprising: a layered assembly,” id. at 13:19–21,

13

“wherein when assembled, the first and second sheets form the layered assembly having

14
15

an outer arcuate edge and an inner arcuate edge and a first end and a second end,” id. at
14:4–7.

16

The Court finds that no construction of the specific word “layered” is necessary

17

because the word has its plain and ordinary meaning. In conjunction with the construction

18

of “assembly” adopted above, the Court construes “layered assembly” to mean “a layered

19

collection of parts so assembled as to form a structure.”

20

6. “flexible substantially non-resilient material”

21

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

22

Material capable of bending easily and
with little ability to rebound or spring
back upon bending or deflection.

Plain and ordinary meaning.

23
24
25
26
27

The term “flexible substantially non-resilient material” appears in claim 17 of the
’386 patent.
///
///

28
10
15-cv-1558-GPC-KSC

1

a. Claim Language

2

Claim 17 describes “a first sheet comprising a flexible substantially non-resilient

3

material having inner and outer arcuate edges extending between a first end and a second

4

end of the first sheet.” Id. at 13:22–25.

5

b. Specification

6

The specification provides as one preferred embodiment a protective collar that

7

“comprises a first exterior sheet 10 comprising a flexible material . . . [with a] second

8

exterior sheet 20 also compris[ing] a flexible material.” Id. at 6:29–35. It goes on to state

9

that in this preferred embodiment, “[i]t is preferred that the first and second exterior sheets

10

10 and 20 be quite flexible with little resilience and resistance to bending, while the padding

11

layer [in-between] be more resilient such that when they are formed into a unit and applied

12

to an animal in a cone shape it will be sufficiently rigid to maintain its cone configuration

13

yet will easily give when hit or pushed or bent and resilient enough to recover its cone

14

shape.” Id. at 7:2–10.

15

c. Prosecution History

16

Plaintiff argues that the term “non-resilient” requires construction because during

17

the patent examination, the Patent Examiner rejected claims 1–9, 19, and 20 for

18

indefiniteness, stating that “[i]t is confusing and seems contradictory as to how the sheets

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

can be both ‘flexible’ and ‘non-resilient’ when flexibility necessarily means something is
resilient.” Pl. Br., Ex. C, AFP000353. The patentee traversed the rejection, explaining that
“[t]he sheet is flexible so it is able to fold without breaking, however it is non-resilient
which means it cannot spring back if it stretched. These terms are not necessarily
inconsistent.” Id. at AFP000348.
As discussed above, the Court finds that the term “flexible” has a plain and ordinary
meaning. The Court also finds that the term “material” has a plain and ordinary meaning.
The meaning of the term “substantially” is highly dependent on intrinsic evidence. See,
e.g., Deering Precision Instruments, L.L.C. v. Vector Distribution Sys., Inc., 347 F.3d 1314,
1322 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (construing the term “substantially in an imaginary plane.”); Epcon

28
11
15-cv-1558-GPC-KSC

1

Gas Sys., Inc. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc., 279 F.3d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (construing the

2

terms “substantially constant” and “substantially below”); Zodiac Pool Care, Inc. v.

3

Hoffinger Indus., Inc., 206 F.3d 1408 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (construing the term “substantially

4

inward”); York Prods., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir.

5

1996) (construing the term “substantially the entire height thereof”); Tex. Instruments Inc.

6

v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 90 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (construing the term

7

“substantially in the common plane”). However, past courts have characterized the term as

8

often “connoting a term of approximation.” See Epcon, 279 F.3d at 1031; see also Deering,

9

347 F.3d at 1323 (recognizing as dictionary definitions of substantially “significantly,”

10

“considerably,” “largely,” and “essentially”). Examining the specification, the Court finds

11

that “substantially” appears to be used in this sense here. The Court thus construes the term

12

“substantially” to mean “largely.” Finally, in accordance with the specification and the

13

prosecution history, the Court finds that the term “non-resilient” has a special meaning of

14

“not able to spring back when bent or folded.”

15
16

Thus, the Court construes the term “flexible substantially non-resilient material” to
mean “flexible material largely not able to spring back when bent or folded.”

17

7. “securing together”

18

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

Attached or connected in a manner not
likely to fail or give way.

Plain and ordinary meaning.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

The term “securing together” appears in claim 17 of the ’386 patent.
a. Claim Language
Claim 17 describes “[t]he first sheet and the second sheet are formed into the
assembly by securing together the outer arcuate edges and the inner arcuate edges and the
first and second ends of the first and second sheets.” ’386 Patent 14:16–19.
b. Specification

26

The specification provides as one preferred embodiment that “[t]he first exterior

27

sheet 10 and the second exterior sheet 20 are joined along their peripheries 12 and 14 by

28
12
15-cv-1558-GPC-KSC

1

sewing. . . . [U]sing separate exterior sheets 10 and 20, they are sewn together along the

2

inner arcuate edge 12 and the outer arcuate edge 14 using conventional hem sewing

3

techniques.” Id. at 7:18–23.

4

Plaintiff argues that their proposed construction should be adopted to distinguish the

5

use of “securing together” from “closure effective to secure the first and second ends of the

6

protective collar, such [as to form] a closed configuration” in Claim 17. However, the Court

7

finds that no construction is necessary because the claim language has a plain and ordinary

8

meaning. As discussed below, this specific use of the word “securing” is differentiated

9

from the use of the word “secure” in the context of the “closure” of the protective collar by

10

the surrounding claim language that describes that latter closure as forming one of the

11

possible “configuration[s]” of said collar.

12

8. “closure effective to secure the first and second ends of the protective collar”

13

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

14

Mechanism effective to reversibly
fasten the ends of the protective collar

Plain and ordinary meaning.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

The term “closure effective to secure the first and second ends of the protective
collar” appears in claim 17 of the ’386 patent.
a. Claim Language
Claim 17 describes “a closure, effective to secure the first and second ends of the
protective collar, such that when the first and second ends of the protective collar are
secured, a closed configuration is formed having an inner opening and an outer opening.”
’386 Patent 14:19–23.
b. Specification

23

The specification provides “[v]arious means of closure [as] suitable for use in the

24

invention,” including “hook and loop fastener strips such as Velcro products” which would

25

“conveniently secure the ends of the collar to form the desired cone shape.” Id. at 7:54–57.

26

Plaintiff argues that the specification bolsters Plaintiff’s proposed construction that

27

the term necessarily includes the idea that the closure is “reversible.” However, the Court

28
13
15-cv-1558-GPC-KSC

1

finds that no construction is necessary because the claim language has a plain and ordinary

2

meaning. Moreover, Plaintiff’s proposed construction risks limiting the patent to its

3

preferred embodiments. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (citations omitted).

4

As Plaintiff acknowledges, the inclusion in the claim language of the concept that

5

the closure results in a “closed configuration” necessarily implies that the cone can also

6

have an “open configuration.” Thus, the Court declines to adopt Plaintiff’s proposed

7

construction.
9. “closed configuration”

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

The form of the protective collar
resulting when the ends reversibly
attached or fastened via a closure.

Plain and ordinary meaning.

12

The term “closed configuration” appears in claim 17 of the ’386 patent.

13

a. Claim Language

14

Claim 17 describes “a closure, effective to secure the first and second ends of the

15

protective collar, such that when the first and second ends of the protective collar are

16

secured, a closed configuration is formed having an inner opening and an outer opening.”

17

Id. at 14:19–23.

18

The Court finds that the term “closed configuration” has a plain and ordinary

19

meaning. Moreover, as discussed above, the Court finds that the plain and ordinary

20

meaning of the term “closed configuration” is supported by the surrounding claim language

21

that describes the characteristics of the collar.
10. “truncated cone shape”

22
23

Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

24

The shape resulting when the ends are
reversibly attached or fastened via a
closure such that the inner opening is
smaller than the outer opening.

Plain and ordinary meaning.

25
26

The term “truncated cone shape” appears in claim 17 of the ’386 patent.

27
28

///
14
15-cv-1558-GPC-KSC

1
2
3

a. Claim Language
Claim 17 describes “the inner opening being smaller than the outer opening to
provide a truncated cone shape.” Id. at 14:24–26.

4

b. Specification

5

The specification describes as a preferred embodiment “[t]he invention further

6

comprises a means of closure, effective to secure the ends of the protective collar, such that

7

when the ends of the protective collar are secured, the collar forms a truncated cone shape

8

with an inner opening 30 and an outer opening 32 as show in FIG. 3.” Id. at 7:50–54.

9

The Court finds that the use of the term “truncated cone shape” in the claim does not

10

deviate from the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. Plaintiff’s proposed construction

11

is imprecise and introduces a “reversibly attached” element to the claim that is not found

12

in the specifications or prosecution history. Accordingly, the Court declines to construe

13

this term.

14

CONCLUSION

15

For the reasons stated above, the terms at issue shall be construed as indicated above.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: April 4, 2016

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15
15-cv-1558-GPC-KSC