Bobel v. Maxlite, Inc.
Filing
126
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order construing claim terms Signed by the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 2/5/2014:Mailed notice(kef, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ANDREZJ BOBEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAXLITE, INC. f/k/a SK AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 12-cv-5346
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AMY J. ST. EVE, District Court Judge:
The parties in this patent infringement case dispute the construction of five terms in the
patent-in-suit. After reviewing the parties’ respective submissions and conducting a Markman
hearing on January 16, 2014, see Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir.
1995) (en banc), aff’d 517 U.S. 370, 116 S. Ct. 1384, 134 L. Ed. 2d 577 (1996), the Court
construes the disputed claim terms as set forth below.
BACKGROUND
I.
Procedural History
On July 6, 2012, Plaintiff Andrejz Bobel brought this suit against Defendant MaxLite,
Inc. for allegedly infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,434,480 (the “’480 patent”) pertaining to an
electronic device for powering a gas discharge load from a low frequency source. (R. 1, Compl.)
Bobel claims that MaxLite’s importation, sale, offering for sale, and use of various models of
dimmable compact fluorescent lamps (“CFLs”), non-dimmable CFLs, and dimmable faux can
fixtures infringes claims 9 and 10 of the ’480 patent. (R. 53, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 11-15, 25, 30-31; R.
55, Am. Infringement Contentions § (ii).) Claims 9 provides:
An electronic device for powering a gas discharge load from a low frequency
power line source wherein the device draws a current proportional to a voltage of
the power line, the device comprising:
a resonant oscillator circuit having a switching transistor and adapted to
energize the gas discharge load;
a power line voltage rectifier; and
a resonant boosting circuit integrated into the power line voltage rectifier
to perform boost switching and rectifying functions developed by and
synchronized with a pulsating current drawn from the rectifier by the
resonant oscillator circuit.
(See Am. Compl. at Ex. A, ’480 Patent at col. 14, ll. 49-61.) Claim 10 provides:
An inverter device for a high power factor current supply to a load, the device
comprising:
rectifier means receiving an input voltage from an AC power source and
providing at an output a pulsating DC voltage source having voltage of
absolute peak magnitude higher than absolute peak magnitude of the
rectified input voltage;
unidirectional device means coupled to the pulsating DC voltage source;
energy storage means receiving energy from the pulsating DC voltage
source via the unidirectional device and providing at DC terminals a
relatively constant DC voltage; and
inverter circuit means connected in parallel with the energy storage means
and comprising:
(i) semiconductor switching means receiving the constant DC
voltage and operable in a periodical ON and OFF manner; and
(ii) resonant oscillator means coupled to the semi-conductor
switching means and providing a high frequency signal to the load.
(Id. at col. 14, l. 62 – col. 16, l. 8.)
On September 20, 2012, MaxLite admitted that the dimmable CFLs it purchased from
certain entities infringed claim 9 of the ’480 patent. (R. 30.) MaxLite, however, did not admit
infringement of any claim for dimmable CFLs it purchased from Lux Electronic Products. (Id.)
On January 25, 2013, the Court granted MaxLite summary judgment on Bobel’s claims
2
regarding the dimmable CFLs MaxLite purchased from Lux. (See R. 60, Memorandum Opinion
and Order.) Bobel’s claims regarding MaxLite’s non-dimmable CFLs and dimmable faux can
fixtures remain.
II.
Compact Fluorescent Lamps
Unlike traditional incandescent light bulbs, which convert heat into light, CFLs produce
light by sending an electric current through ionized gas. See generally Department of Energy,
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Fluorescent Lighting Basics (Oct. 17, 2013),
http://energy.gov/eere/energybasics/articles/fluorescent-lighting-basics (last visited
Feb. 3, 2014); Office of Compliance, Fast Facts: Compact Fluorescent Lamps (Jan. 2009),
http://www.compliance.gov/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/fastfacts_compactfluorescentlamps.pdf
(last visited Feb. 3, 2014). CFLs generally consist of two main components: an electronic ballast
and a gas-filled tube. The electronic ballast, which connects the gas-filled tube to the power line,
regulates the current flowing through the lamp. Some CFLs have an electronic ballast
permanently installed in the light fixture, in which case the bulb consists of only a gas-filled
tube. See Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Fluorescent
Lighting Basics. Other CFLs, including those typically used in households, combine the
electronic ballast and gas-filled tube into a single unit. Id.
The electronic ballast operates the same way in either setup: it converts the lowfrequency alternating (“AC”) voltage of a conventional power line into a high-frequency AC
output to power the lamp. (See ’480 patent at col. 1, ll. 38-44.) To do so, the electronic ballast
first converts the AC input voltage to direct (“DC”) voltage and then converts the DC voltage
into a high-frequency AC voltage. (See id.) The high-frequency AC voltage excites the
molecules in the gas-filled tube and causes the molecules to produce invisible ultraviolet light.
3
See Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Fluorescent
Lighting Basics. When the ultraviolet light strikes the phosphor coating on the gas-filled tube,
the phosphor emits visible light. Id.
CFLs produce the same amount of visible light as traditional incandescent lamps but use
less electrical power overall and last several times longer than incandescent lamps. See, e.g., id.;
Office of Compliance, Fast Facts: Compact Fluorescent Lamps. CFLs, however, typically have
a lower power factor than their incandescent counterparts. Power factor, which is the ratio of
real power to apparent power, measures the effectiveness with which a device converts the
electrical power drawn from the power line to useful energy. See, e.g., INSTITUTE OF
ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS, INC., THE AUTHORITATIVE DICTIONARY OF IEEE
STANDARDS TERMS 852 (7th ed. 2000); P. HOROWITZ & W. HILL, THE ART OF ELECTRONICS 34
(2d ed. 1989). In simplified terms, a lamp with a low power factor draws more current from the
power line to produce the same amount of energy in the form of light and heat than a lamp with a
high power factor. The invention at issue in this case pertains to an electronic ballast designed to
improve the power factor of CFLs. (’480 patent at col. 2, ll. 52-56.)
III.
The Patent-In-Suit
The U.S. Patent Office issued the ’480 patent to Andrezj Bobel on July 18, 1995 from
Application No. 134,976. The invention in the ’480 patent focuses on a design for electronic
ballasts that improves the power factor of CFLs while avoiding the shortcomings of prior art,
which relied on large inductors, complex and expensive circuitry, or re-directing power from the
output of the device to the input resulting in the dissipation of power within the ballast. (See id.
at col. 1, l. 64 – col. 2, l. 56.) The present invention teaches the use of “an integrated, singlestage electronic energy converter wherein the energy used to correct the power factor is not re-
4
directed from the output to the input of the device,” but rather is stored within and released by “a
resonant boosting circuit integrated into a power line voltage rectifier” at the input of the device.
(See id. at col. 3, ll. 1-7, col. 9, ll. 32-57.) The ’480 patent provides three embodiments of this
“resonant boosting circuit integrated into a power line voltage rectifier:” Figure 1, Figure 11, and
Figure 12.
Figure 1 illustrates the invention in its preferred embodiment. The “boosting inductor”
(BI) and the “boosting and rectifying bridge” (BRB) of Figure 1 are most relevant to construing
the disputed claim terms. The boosting inductor consists of two power input terminals (1 and 2),
two output terminals (3 and 4), and two inductors (L1 and L2). (Id. at col. 5, ll. 38-43.) Inductor
L1 is connected between terminals 1 and 3, and inductor L2 is connected between terminals 2
and 4. (Id.) The boosting and rectifying bridge includes a full-wave rectifier bridge formed by
diodes D1-D4, four capacitors (C1-C4) connected across each diode, respectively, AC input
terminals 5 and 6, and DC output terminals 7 and 8. (Id. at col. 5, ll. 29-37.) Terminal 7 is the
positive DC output terminal, and terminal 8 is the negative DC output terminal. (Id.) Each of
the four capacitors in the boosting and rectifying bridge has a value of approximately 10 nF,
which is 3,300 times less than the value of the storage capacitor (SC) located outside the
boosting and rectifying bridge (33 uF). (Id.)
5
Figures 11 and 12 provide alternative embodiments of the boosting and rectifying bridge
(BRB) in Figure 1. (Id. at col. 7, ll. 13-22.) The alternative embodiment in Figure 11 (BRB11)
replaces capacitors C2 and C4 with “capacitor C5 connected between terminals 7 and 8.” (Id. at
col. 7, ll. 15-17.) Figure 12 depicts a boosting and rectifying voltage doubler (BRVD), which
also may substitute for the boosting and rectifying bridge of Figure 1. (Id. at col. 7, ll. 18-22.)
The boosting and rectifying voltage doubler omits diodes D2 and D4 from Figure 1. (Id.)
6
IV.
The Disputed Terms
In their claim construction briefs, the parties raised four disputed terms for the Court to
construe: (1) “resonant boosting circuit;” (2) “power line voltage rectifier;” (3) “integrated into;”
and (4) “a resonant boosting circuit integrated into the power line voltage rectifier.”
Additionally, the parties raised a fifth disputed term during the Markman hearing: “parallel.”
The parties’ initial proposed constructions of these five disputed terms are set forth below.
Claim Term
MaxLite’s Proposed
Construction
A component of a circuit
including an inductor connected
in circuit between AC input
terminals of a power line rectifier
and an alternating voltage source,
and capacitors connected to the
inductor and in parallel across
each diode of the rectifier from
the power line to the output of the
power line rectifier.
Bobel’s Proposed Construction
power line voltage
rectifier
A device including at least two
diodes, with each diode being
connected on one side to an AC
power line that convert an AC
signal from alternating voltage
source into a pulsating DC signal
at the output of the rectifier.
Plain and ordinary meaning. A
power line voltage rectifier to one
of ordinary skill means a rectifier
that rectifies AC voltage to DC
voltage.
integrated into
Physically combined into.
Plain and ordinary meaning. The
term means combined into.
a resonant boosting
circuit integrated into
the power line
voltage rectifier
An electrical circuit having
capacitors physically combined
into a power line voltage rectifier,
which permits current to flow
from a power line through an
inductor on the power line and the
diodes of the rectifier to the
output of the rectifier as well as
through an alternate path through
the capacitors to increase the
amount of current exiting the
output of the rectifier.
Plain and ordinary meaning. One
of ordinary skill in the art would
understand “a resonant boosting
circuit integrated into the power
line voltage rectifier” to mean
that the boosting inductance and
the boosting capacitance of the
resonant boosting circuit is
combined into the rectifier.
resonant boosting
circuit
7
Plain and ordinary meaning. A
resonant boosting circuit to one of
ordinary skill means a circuit with
some inductance and some
capacitance that outputs a voltage
higher than the voltage of the
input.
parallel
Of or denoting electrical
components connected to
common points at each end,
rather than one to another in
sequence.
Of or denoting electrical
components or circuits connected
to common points at each end,
rather than one to another in
sequence.
LEGAL STANDARD
Because the claims of a patent define the invention, claim construction—the process of
giving meaning to the claim language—defines the scope of the invention. See Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law
that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to
exclude.” (citing 35 U.S.C. § 112)). Claim construction is a matter of law for the court to
determine. See Markman, 517 U.S. at 391; Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. HemCon, Inc., 672
F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012). When construing claim terms, the Court “first look[s] to, and
primarily rel[ies] on, the intrinsic evidence, including the prosecution history and the
specification—which is usually dispositive.” SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 727 F.3d 1187,
1195 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315). “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.” Id. (quoting Thorner v.
Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365-67 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also Phillips,
415 F.3d at 1312-13.
Although “less significant than the intrinsic record,” extrinsic evidence, which consists of
“all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor
testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises,” may “shed useful light on the relevant art.” See
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (citations omitted); see also Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v.
Int’l Gaming Tech., 709 F.3d 1348, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013); HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co.,
8
KG, 667 F.3d 1270, 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In particular, “[d]ictionaries or comparable sources
are often useful to assist in understanding the commonly understood meaning of words and have
been used both by [the Federal Circuit] and the Supreme Court in claim interpretation.” Phillips,
415 F.3d at 1322-23; see also Aristocrat Techs., 709 F.3d at 1358 (affirming that the district
court’s reliance on a dictionary definition to inform its understanding of the “ordinary and
customary” meaning of a claim term was proper). “[J]udges are free to consult dictionaries . . .
to better understand the underlying technology and [they] may also rely on dictionary definitions
when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any
definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1322-23 (internal quotations and citation omitted)); see also Meyer Intellectual Props. Ltd. v.
Bodum, Inc., 690 F.3d 1354, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (same).
ANALYSIS
In their briefs, the parties raised four disputed terms for the Court to construe. During the
course of the Markman hearing, the parties resolved their disputes regarding those original four
terms but raised a fifth term for the Court to construe: “parallel.” For completeness, the Court
will construe all five disputed terms.
I.
Resonant Boosting Circuit
MaxLite’s Proposed Construction
A component of a circuit including an inductor
connected in circuit between AC input
terminals of a power line rectifier and an
alternating voltage source, and capacitors
connected to the inductor and in parallel across
each diode of the rectifier from the power line
to the output of the power line rectifier.
Bobel’s Proposed Construction
Plain and ordinary meaning. A resonant
boosting circuit to one of ordinary skill
means a circuit with some inductance and
some capacitance that outputs a voltage
higher than the voltage of the input.
The ’480 patent specification describes the “resonant boosting circuit” in the invention at
issue as “comprising[] (i) boosting inductance connected in circuit between the AC input
9
terminals and the alternative voltage source, and (ii) bosting [sic] capacitance connected in
parallel with the unidirectional devices of the rectifier circuit.” (’480 patent at col. 3, ll. 26-31.)
This definition comports with the embodiments of the invention in the ’480 patent. In Figure 1,
for example, the boosting inductors (L1 and L2) are connected in circuit between the AC input
terminals (5 and 6) and the alternative voltage source (AVS), and the boosting capacitors (C1C4) are connected in parallel with the unidirectional devices of the rectifier circuit (diodes D1D4). Furthermore, each alternative embodiment of the “boosting inductor” depicted in
Figures 8-10 of the ’480 patent contains at least one inductor connected in circuit between the
AC input terminals and the alternative voltage source. (Id. at Figs. 8-10.)
The alternative embodiments of the “boosting and rectifying bridge” in Figures 11 and 12
also contain at least one boosting capacitor connected in parallel with at least one diode of the
rectifier circuit. (Id. at Figs. 11-12.) With respect to Figure 11, the parties disagree regarding
whether capacitor C5 is connected “in parallel” with diodes D2 and D4, but both acknowledge
that capacitor C1 is connected in parallel with D1 and C3 is connected in parallel with D3. (See
1/16/14 Markman Hearing Transcript (“1/16/14 Hrg. Tr.”) at 15:7-12; 53:22-54:3.) With
respect to Figure 12, the parties do not dispute that capacitor C11 is connected in parallel with
D1 and C33 with D3. (’480 patent at Fig. 12.)
The construction of “resonant boosting circuit” that MaxLite proposes in its briefs
suggests that each capacitor in the resonant boosting circuit must connect in parallel with one
and only one diode. This construction conflicts with the specification, which states that the
boosting capacitance comprises “one or more capacitors” and “is connected in parallel with
selected one or more unidirectional devices of the rectifier means.” (Id. at col. 4, ll. 61-64
(emphasis added).) According to this plain language, a single capacitor may be connected in
10
parallel with multiple diodes. MaxLite backed away from this construction during the Markman
hearing, acknowledging that the patent does not require each capacitor to be connected across
one diode. (1/16/14 Hrg. Tr. 48:11-49:5.) Rather, as both parties agree, the circuit requires “at
least one capacitor in parallel with a diode in order to get the boost function.” (See id. (emphasis
added); see also id. at 44:21-24.) The Court, therefore, rejects the construction of “resonant
boosting circuit” that MaxLite initially proposed in its briefs.
The Court also rejects the construction Bobel proposes in its brief. Bobel states that “[a]
resonant boosting circuit to one of ordinary skill means a circuit with some inductance and some
capacitance that outputs a voltage higher than the voltage of the input.” (See Am. Joint Claim
Constr. Chart ¶ 1.) The patent, however, does not support such a broad construction. It provides
specific requirements regarding the location and connection of the inductors and capacitors in the
resonant boosting circuit. (See ’480 patent at col. 3, ll. 22-31, col. 4, ll. 53-57, 61-64.) The
Court, therefore, rejects Bobel’s proposed construction as overbroad.
During the Markman hearing, the Court asked whether the parties would agree to using
the construction of “resonant boosting circuit” contained in the patent itself—namely, a circuit
“comprising[] (i) boosting inductance connected in circuit between the AC input terminals and
the alternative voltage source and (ii) boosting capacitance connected in parallel with the
unidirectional devices of the rectifier circuit.” (See 1/16/14 Hrg. Tr. at 30:7-23, 47:16-48:1.)
MaxLite raised no objection to this construction. (Id. at 47:16-48:1.) Nor did Bobel, provided
that the construction of “boosting capacitance” is “consistent with the definition provided in
column 4, line 61 to 64.” (Id. at 30:7-23.) As explained above, column 4, lines 61-64 of the
’480 patent state that “the boosting capacitance comprising one or more capacitors is connected
in parallel with selected one or more unidirectional devices of the rectifier means.” (’480 patent
11
at col. 4, ll. 61-64.) Based on the patent specification and the parties’ agreement, the Court
construes the term “resonant boosting circuit” as follows: “a circuit comprising (i) boosting
inductance connected in circuit between the AC input terminals and (ii) boosting capacitance,
comprising one or more capacitors, connected in parallel with selected one or more diodes of the
rectifier circuit.”1
II.
Power Line Voltage Rectifier
MaxLite’s Proposed Construction
Bobel’s Proposed Construction
A device including at least two diodes, with
A power line voltage rectifier to one of
each diode being connected on one side to an ordinary skill means a rectifier that rectifies
AC power line that convert an AC signal from AC voltage to DC voltage.
alternating voltage source into a pulsating DC
signal at the output of the rectifier.
In its opening brief, MaxLite proposes the following construction of the term “power line
rectifier:” “a device including at least two diodes, with each diode being connected on one side
to an AC power line that convert an AC signal from alternating voltage source into a pulsating
DC signal at the output of the rectifier.” (MaxLite’s Revised Claim Constr. Br. at 11.) Bobel’s
only objection to MaxLite’s proposed construction is that the patent refers to a “power line
voltage rectifier,” not a “power line rectifier.” (See R. 114, Bobel’s Resp. Br. at 15.)
Bobel’s objection is well-founded. The term “power line voltage rectifier” appears in
claim 9 of the ’480 patent (see ’480 patent at col. 14, l. 56), but “power line rectifier” appears
nowhere in the patent. Furthermore, MaxLite acknowledged during the Markman hearing that
“power line voltage rectifier” is the proper term for the Court to construe. (See 1/16/14 Hrg. Tr.
47:12-14.) Bobel reiterated during the hearing that it has no objection to MaxLite’s proposed
1
The parties agree that the term “unidirectional devices” used in the ’480 patent refers to diodes. (See
1/16/14 Hrg. Tr. 21:16-18; R. 116, MaxLite’s Revised Claim Constr. Br. at 8-9.) The Court, therefore,
replaces “unidirectional devices” with “diodes” in its construction.
12
construction “[p]rovided that we’re talking about a power line voltage rectifier,” rather than a
“power line rectifier.” (1/16/14 Hrg. Tr. 29:10:-30:5.)
The parties’ agreed construction comports with the plain meaning of a “rectifier”—“a
device for converting alternating current into direct current.” See MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S
COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 978 (10th ed. 1999); see also A.P. GODSE & U.A. BAKSHI, BASIC
ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING at 2-1 (9th rev. ed. 2008) (“A rectifier is a device which converts
a.c. voltage to pulsating d.c. voltage, using one or more p-n junction diodes.”). It also is
consistent with the patent specification. The rectifying bridge depicted in Figures 1 and 11 and
the voltage doubler in Figure 12 each include at least two diodes, and each diode is connected to
the AC power line at terminal 5 or 6. Furthermore, as explained in the specification, the
rectifying bridge operates to convert the AC signal from the alternating power source (AVS) into
a “variable DC voltage” between terminals V+ and V-. (’480 patent at col. 7, l. 63 – col. 8, l. 8.)
Accordingly, based on the patent specification and the parties’ agreement, the Court
adopts MaxLite’s proposed construction of a “power line voltage rectifier,” with certain
grammatical changes for clarity. The Court construes the term “power line voltage rectifier” as
follows: “a device that converts the AC signal from an alternating voltage source into a pulsating
DC signal at the output of the rectifier, with such device including at least two diodes, each of
which connects on one side to the AC power line.”
III.
Integrated Into
MaxLite’s Proposed Construction
Physically combined into.
Bobel’s Proposed Construction
Plain and ordinary meaning. The term means
combined into.
MaxLite’s and Bobel’s proposed constructions of “integrated into” differ by only one
word—physically. During the Markman hearing, Bobel’s counsel acknowledged that the
13
parties’ proposed constructions have the same meaning and stated that he did not “have a
problem with” MaxLite’s proposed construction:
I don’t think there’s a difference between the two [constructions]. . . . There is a
word additionally in MaxLite’s. It says ‘physically.’ I don’t have a problem with
that because [in] the resonant boosting circuit, the capacitance and the inductance
have to be connected to the diodes of the rectifier.
(1/16/14 Hrg. Tr. 28:23-29:17.) MaxLite’s proposed construction is consistent with the patent
specification: each embodiment of the invention in the patent physically combines the inductors
(L1 and L2) and capacitors (C1-C4)2 of the resonant boosting circuit with the rectifying bridge
(D1-D4) of the power line voltage rectifier. (See ’480 patent at Figs. 1, 11, 12.) MaxLite’s
proposed construction also comports with the plain meaning of “integrated into.” See MERRIAMWEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 608 (defining “integrate” as “to unite with something else”
or “incorporate into a larger unit”). The Court, therefore, adopts the parties’ agreed construction
and construes the term “integrated into” as “physically combined into.”
IV.
A Resonant Boosting Circuit Integrated into the Power Line Voltage Rectifier
MaxLite’s Proposed Construction
An electrical circuit having capacitors
physically combined into a power line voltage
rectifier, which permits current to flow from a
power line through an inductor on the power
line and the diodes of the rectifier to the
output of the rectifier as well as through an
alternate path through the capacitors to
increase the amount of current exiting the
output of the rectifier.
Bobel’s Proposed Construction
Plain and ordinary meaning. One of ordinary
skill in the art would understand “a resonant
boosting circuit integrated into the power line
voltage rectifier” to mean that the boosting
inductance and the boosting capacitance of
the resonant boosting circuit is combined into
the rectifier.
The fourth disputed term—“a resonant boosting circuit integrated into the power line
voltage rectifier”—is simply a combination of the previous three terms. Although MaxLite’s and
Bobel’s proposed constructions for “a resonant boosting circuit integrated into the power line
voltage rectifier” differs significantly in their briefs, the parties reached a compromise during the
2
The parties disagree regarding whether capacitor C5 in Figure 11 constitutes a “boosting capacitor.”
14
Markman hearing. Bobel agreed to use the construction MaxLite proposed in the conclusion of
its reply brief, provided that the parties agree to construe the term “boosting capacitance”
consistently with the definition provided in column 4, lines 61-64 of the ’480 patent. (See
1/16/14 Hrg. Tr. 5:6-7:11.) Specifically, the parties agreed to construe “a resonant boosting
circuit integrated into the power line voltage rectifier” as
a circuit operable to provide between the DC terminals a variable DC voltage
having an absolute peak magnitude higher than the absolute peak magnitude of a
rectified voltage of the alternative voltage source, and the resonant boosting
circuit comprising: (i) boosting inductance connected in circuit between the AC
input terminals and the alternating voltage source, and (ii) boosting capacitance
comprising one or more capacitors connected in parallel with one or more
unidirectional devices of the rectifier circuit.
(Id. at 8:13-9:4.) Although MaxLite agreed to the compromise at the Markman hearing, it noted
that this construction would raise an issue regarding the construction of “parallel.” (Id. at 9:1310:7.) The Court addresses the construction of “parallel” in Part V below.
The parties’ agreed construction of “a resonant boosting circuit integrated into a power
line rectifier” comes directly from the patent specification (see ’480 patent at col. 3, ll. 22-31),
and it is consistent with the Court’s constructions of the other disputed terms and the
embodiments of the invention in Figures 1, 11 and 12. (See Parts I-III, supra.) The Court,
therefore, adopts the parties’ compromise, and construes “a resonant boosting circuit integrated
into a power line rectifier” as follows: “a circuit operable to provide between the DC terminals a
variable DC voltage having an absolute peak magnitude higher than the absolute peak magnitude
of a rectified voltage of the alternative voltage source, and the resonant boosting circuit
comprising: (i) boosting inductance connected in circuit between the AC input terminals and the
alternating voltage source, and (ii) boosting capacitance comprising one or more capacitors
connected in parallel with one or more unidirectional devices of the rectifier circuit.”
15
V.
Parallel
MaxLite’s Proposed Construction
Of or denoting electrical components
connected to common points at each end,
rather than one to another in sequence.
Bobel’s Proposed Construction
Of or denoting electrical components or
circuits connected to common points at each
end, rather than one to another in sequence.
Although the parties ultimately agreed to constructions of the four original disputed claim
terms during the Markman hearing, the parties could not agree on a proposed construction of
“parallel.” Both parties repeatedly refer to components being “in parallel” in their claim
construction briefs, and MaxLite even provides a definition of “parallel” in the background
section of its opening brief:
Parallel – devices are in parallel when their endpoints share common points or
nodes. In parallel devices a current entering a first common node connected to
the two devices splits and portions flow through the various devices, according to
the constitutive equations of each circuit element, then combine and leave the
parallel circuit elements from the second common node connected to as an
indistinguishable single current.
(MaxLite’s Revised Claim Constr. Br. at 2.) Because the parties had not included “parallel” as a
disputed term, however, neither party addressed the meaning of “parallel” in detail in their briefs
or provided citations to the intrinsic and extrinsic record to support that meaning.
Nonetheless, at the Markman hearing, the parties agreed that the Court should adopt the
commonly accepted dictionary definition of “parallel” used in the field of electronics: “of or
denoting electrical components or circuits connected to common points at each end, rather than
one to another in sequence.” (See 1/16/14 Hrg. Tr. 63:6-22); see also NEW OXFORD AMERICAN
DICTIONARY 1270 (3d ed. 2010). The parties agreed that this definition reflects how one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the customary meaning of “parallel.” The parties,
however, disagreed regarding whether the Court should include the phrase “or circuits” in its
construction. Bobel proposed adopting the dictionary definition verbatim, including the phrase
“or circuits.” (1/16/14 Hrg. Tr. 63:19-64:18, 65:9-24.) MaxLite, on the other hand, opposes
16
including the phrase “or circuits” in the Court’s construction because the patent discusses
components connected in parallel, not circuits. (Id. at 64:21-65:8.) Thus, according to MaxLite,
the phrase is irrelevant and including it in the Court’s construction “might unnecessarily confuse
the definition” of “parallel” in later stages of the litigation. (Id. at 64:21-65:1.)
Before deciding whether to include the phrase “or circuits” in its construction of
“parallel,” the Court must assess whether the dictionary definition on which the parties rely is
consistent with the meaning of “parallel” in the ’480 patent. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1322-23
(“[J]udges . . . [may] rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the
dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of
the patent documents.”); Meyer Intellectual Props. Ltd., 690 F.3d at 1368 (same). The term
“parallel” appears 19 times in the ’480 patent, including in claims 1-3, 6-7, 10. Although the
patent does not explicitly define “parallel,” a comparison of several figures in the patent with
their written descriptions supports adopting the dictionary definition in the Court’s construction.
With respect to Figure 2, for example, the patent states that “[t]he lamps FL21, FL22
have resonant capacitors RC21, RC22 connected in parallel, respectively” (’480 patent at col. 6,
ll. 8-13), and the drawing of Figure 2 shows that FL21 and RC21 “connect to common points at
each end,” as do FL22 and RC22:
17
(Id. at Fig. 2.) Similarly, the patent describes Figures 5 and 6 each as having a resonant capacitor
(RC5 and RC6) “connected in parallel” with a primary winding of the resonant inductor (L15
and L16) (see id. at col. 6, ll. 39-68), and the drawings of Figures 5 and 6 show that the resonant
capacitors and primary windings at issue “connect to common points at each end”—output
terminals OT1 and OT2:
(Id. at Figs. 5, 6.) Finally, the patent explains that the circuit in Figure 5 “is identical in
operation to the one [in] FIG. 1, with the exception that the resonant elements”—i.e., the
resonant capacitor and the resonant inductor—“are connected here in parallel.” (Id. at col. 9,
18
ll. 3-10.) The resonant elements in Figure 5 (RC5 and RI5) connect at common end points OT1
and OT2 (id. at col. 6, ll. 39-54 & Fig. 5), while the resonant elements in Figure 1 (RC1 and RI1)
do not; rather, the resonant elements in Figure 1 are connected “in series.” (See id. at col. 5, l. 62
– col. 6, l. 7 & Fig. 1.) The descriptions of Figures 1, 5, and 6 and corresponding drawings,
therefore, support the parties’ position that the Court should adopt the dictionary definition of
“parallel” in its construction.
Turning to the specific dispute at hand, the Court rejects MaxLite’s proposal to omit the
phrase “or circuits” found in the dictionary definition from the construction of “parallel.” The
Court must construe the term “parallel” in the context of the entire patent, not just in the context
of the specific occurrence at issue in this case. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313 (“Importantly, the
person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in context of the
particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent,
including the specification.”). Contrary to MaxLite’s representation during the Markman
hearing, the ‘480 patent explicitly discusses “parallel circuits” as well as “parallel components.”
(See ’480 patent at col. 4, ll. 35-52, col. 11, l. 66 – col. 12, l. 19.) Specifically, in claim 2 and the
specification, the patent describes one embodiment of the resonant oscillator means as
comprising, among other things, “an inductor, a capacitor and the gas discharge load being
effectively connected in a parallel circuit adapted to power the gas discharge load and the
parallel circuit being connected between the output terminals.” (Id. at col. 11, l. 66 col. 12, l. 19
(emphasis added); see also id. at col. 4, ll. 35-52 (same).) Because the patent uses the term
“parallel” interchangeably with respect to “components” and “circuits,” MaxLite’s proposal to
exclude the phrase “or circuits” from the Court’s construction is inappropriate. See id.; see also
Tele-Cons, Inc. v. General Elec. Co., No. 6:10-cv-451 LED-JDL, 2012 WL 3112299, at *8 (E.D.
19
Tex. July 31, 2012) (“Although Claim 4 describes ‘a feedback capacitor connected in parallel
with said line voltage,’ the term ‘connected in parallel’ is not exclusive to capacitors or Claim 4.
. . . Thus, ‘connected in parallel’ should not be limited to a capacitor.”). The Court, therefore,
construes “parallel” as follows: “of or denoting electrical components or circuits connected to
common points at each end, rather than one to another in sequence.”
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court construes the disputed claim terms as follows:
Resonant boosting circuit: a circuit comprising (i) boosting inductance
connected in circuit between the AC input terminals and (ii) boosting capacitance,
comprising one or more capacitors, connected in parallel with selected one or
more diodes of the rectifier circuit;
Power line voltage rectifier: a device that converts the AC voltage from an
alternating voltage source into a pulsating DC voltage at the output of the
rectifier, with such device including at least two diodes, each of which connects
on one side to the AC power line;
Integrated into: physically combined into;
A resonant boosting circuit integrated into the power line voltage rectifier: a
circuit operable to provide between the DC terminals a variable DC voltage
having an absolute peak magnitude higher than the absolute peak magnitude of a
rectified voltage of the alternative voltage source, and the resonant boosting
circuit comprising: (i) boosting inductance connected in circuit between the AC
input terminals and the alternating voltage source, and (ii) boosting capacitance
comprising one or more capacitors connected in parallel with one or more
unidirectional devices of the rectifier circuit; and
Parallel: of or denoting electrical components or circuits connected to common
points at each end, rather than one to another in sequence.
DATED: February 5, 2014
ENTERED
______________________________
AMY J. ST. EVE
U.S. District Court Judge
20
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?