Manufacturing Resources International, Inc. v. Civiq Smartscapes, LLC et al

Filing 181

MEMORANDUM ORDER Construing the term "rear surface of the electronic display" regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,854,572 and U.S. Patent No. 9,629,287. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 3/5/2019. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

MANUFACTURING RESOURCES
INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 17-269-RGA

V.

CIVIQ SMARTSCAPES, LLC, et al. ,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
In my previous Opinion (D.I. 150) and Order (D.1. 152), I construed various terms from
U.S. Patent Nos. 8,854,572 ("the ' 572 patent"), 8,854,595 ("the ' 595 patent"), 9,629,287 ("the
' 287 patent"), 9,173,325 ("the ' 325 patent"), 9,173,322 ("the ' 322 patent"), 8,773 ,633 ("the ' 633
patent"), 9,285 ,108 ("the ' 108 patent") and 9,313 ,917 ("the ' 917 patent"). Before the Markman
Hearing, I provided the parties with my proposed constructions for several terms. (D.I. 146). At
the hearing, I reserved judgment on one such term in the asserted claims of the ' 572 patent and
the ' 287 patent, "rear surface of the electronic display," pending additional briefing by the
parties. (D.I. 147 at 87:8-14; D.I. 151 ; D.I. 154; D.I. 159; D.I. 176). After consideration of that
briefing, I now construe the term "rear surface of the electronic display."
1.

"rear surface of the electronic display"

a.

Plaintiff's proposed construction: no construction needed

b.

Def
endants ' proposed construction: "rear surface of the backlight"

c.

Def
endants' alternative proposed construction: "rear surface of an LCD
stack or backlight (in an LCD or LED) or posterior surface of an OLED,
FED, CRT, plasma or other display when there is no backlight"

d.

Court 's construction: no construction needed

This term appears in asserted claims of the ' 572 and ' 287 patents. Defendants argue that
the claim term "does not have a specific meaning to a person of skill in the art" and therefore
such a person "would not readily understand which component"ofthe LCD defines its 'rear
surface. "' (D.I. 151 at 1-2). Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' "alternate definition departs from
the ordinary meaning of the terms at-issue" and that "the intrinsic evidence uses these terms
according to their accepted ordinary meanings." (D.I. 154 at 2).
I agree with Plaintiff. "The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the
context of the specification and prosecution history." Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entertainment
Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane)). Moreover, "[d]ifferences among claims can[] be a useful
guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim terms." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.
" [T]he 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." Id. at 1315.
Here, the claims themselves indicate that the patentee used the term "rear surface of an
electronic display" broadly. As Plaintiff notes, other claims within the patents are more specific
and narrow. (D.I. 154 at 4). These claims include both independent claims ('287 patent, cl. 12;
'572 patent, cl. 16) and dependent claims ('287 patent, cl. 3, 10). This indicates that I should not
import these limitations into the claim term. Additionally, I do not believe that the specification
uses the term "electronic display" in an inconsistent way. In the context of the patent
specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that "rear surface of the

electronic display" is a broad term, encompassing more than what is claimed in specific
limitations of the dependent claims. Defendants' alternate proposed claim construction
continues to read in impermissible limitations from embodiments and dependent claims.
Therefore, I find that no construction is necessary. Defendants may not argue that the term is
limited as set forth in their proposed constructions.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that as used in the asserted claims
of U.S. Patent No. 8,854,572 ("the ' 572 patent") and U.S. Patent No. 9, 629,287 ("the '287
patent"), no construction is necessary for the term "rear surface of the electronic display. "

/'

Entered this

!J..._ day of March, 2019.