M Edge Accessories LLC v. Amazon.Com Inc.

Filing 95

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Claim Construction. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 11/21/13. (bmhs, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
M-EDGE ACCESSORIES LLC,
Plaintiff
vs.

CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-11-3332

*
Defendant

*

*
*

AMAZON.COM INC.,

*

*

*

*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

*

*

In the Second Amended Complaint [Document 33], Plaintiff MEdge Accessories LLC ("M-Edge") asserts, in Count I,1 that
Defendant Amazon.com Inc. ("Amazon") infringed claims in United
States Patent No. 8,047,670 ("the '670 Patent" or "the Patent").
In regard to Count I, the parties have proceeded pursuant to the
Patent Scheduling Order [Document 46].
The Court has considered the materials submitted by the
parties relating to claim construction.

The Court has also held

a hearing regarding claim construction issues (a Markman2
hearing) and has had the benefit of the arguments of counsel.
The Court herein presents its claim construction.

1

In Counts II, III and IV, M-Edge asserts claims for unfair
competition, intentional interference with contracts and
economic relations, and false advertising.
2
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390
(1996).

I.

BACKGROUN
B
ND
A.
A

The Alleged Inventio
on

The '670 Patent, "Booklig
ght for a Protect
tive Cove of an
er
EReader," disc
closes a light at
ttached t an ERe
to
eader – f
for
example, a Kin
ndle – in a manne such t
n
er
that the reader c
can
illuminate the screen.
e

An emb
bodiment is shown in Figu
n
ure 3D.

2

B.

Claim Terms at Issue
1.

Terms Requiring Construction

The parties have identified fifteen claim terms (with
variations) that one, or both, contend require judicial
construction.

For context purposes, it suffices to set forth

Claim 1 as a representative claim with the terms at issue
therein highlighted:

1. A cover assembly for an eReader comprising: a
protective cover including: a first and second cover
each including, an interior surface and an exterior
surface, a spine connecting the first and second
covers which are pivotable with respect to each other
about the spine, and a pocket formed between the
interior surface and the exterior surface of one of
the first and second covers, wherein the pocket does
not traverse the spine and extends away from the spine
and has an opening formed at an edge of one of the
interior surfaces, a booklight including, a base with
a protrusion, a substantially flat portion that is
disposed within the pocket formed between the interior
surface and the exterior surface of one of the first
and second covers, the substantially flat portion
including a slot that receives the protrusion, so that
the base is coupled with the substantially flat
portion while the base is capable of moving relative
to the substantially flat portion, a light housing
assembly having a light source, and a neck between the
base and the light housing assembly.
'670 Patent 11:21-44 (emphasis added).
2.

Allegedly Ambiguous Terms

Amazon contends that four claim terms are indefinite.
These are:

3

Claim 4: "The cover assembly of claim 1,
wherein the interior surface further
includes an axis . . . ."
Id. at 49-51.
Claim 6: "A cover assembly for an eReader, .
. . wherein a portion of the interior surface
of one of the first and second covers is
sized to secure the eReader . . . ."
Id. at 56-61.
Claim 12: "The cover and light assembly
according to claim 8, wherein the exterior
cover is sized to wrap around an e Reader."
Id. at 12:47-48.
Claim 13: "The cover and light assembly
according to claim 8, wherein the interior
surface includes at least one mounting
device disposed on the interior surface."
Id. at 49-51.
II.

DISCUSSION
A.

General Principles
1.

Claim Construction

"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."

Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water

Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(citing Aro Mfg., Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365
U.S. 336, 339 (1961)).
The construction of patent claims is a matter for the
Court.

Markman, 517 U.S. at 390. However, the Court must
4

construe claim terms as they would be understood, in the context
of the patent, by one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
As expressed in Phillips v. AWH Corp.:
We have frequently stated that the
words of a claim are generally given their
ordinary and customary meaning. We have
made clear, moreover, that the ordinary and
customary meaning of a claim term is the
meaning that the term would have to a person
of ordinary skill in the art in question at
the time of the invention, i.e., as of the
effective filing date of the patent
application.
. . . .
Importantly, the person of ordinary
skill in the art is deemed to read the claim
term not only in the context of the
particular claim in which the disputed term
appears, but in the context of the entire
patent, including the specification.
415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(internal quotations
omitted).

2.

Indefiniteness

Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), claims must "particularly
point[] out and distinctly claim[] the subject matter which the
inventor [] regards as the invention."

A claim that does not

comply with this requirement is indefinite.

A claim is

indefinite only if it is not amenable to claim construction or
is "insolubly ambiguous."

Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J.

Reynolds Tobacco Co., 655 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
5

B.

Lexicography

Light housing - The Court will, herein, use the term "light
housing" to refer to the structure that includes the light bulb
[See 40, Figure 1A of the '670 Patent] referred to in the Patent
as "light housing assembly."
The Court finds that, as used in the '670 Patent:




There is no material difference
between coupled/attached/connected
"to" and coupled/attached/connected
"with."



C.

There is no material difference
between "coupled," "attached," or
"connected."

The terms "planar base" and
"substantially flat portion of the
base" refer to the same structure and
the Court shall use the terms
interchangeably.

Construction
1.

Pocket

The four independent claims (i.e., Claims 1, 6, 8, and 17)
and various dependent claims include as a limitation "a pocket
formed between" [two identified surfaces or parts thereof].

The

Patent provides an illustration of a pocket used in a disclosed
embodiment as structure 120 in Figure 3A.

6

Amazon se
A
eeks cons
struction of the word "po
n
ocket" as "[a]n
s
enclosed pouch with an opening in one end that support the
h
n
g
t
ts
booklight and allows it to be removabl couple to the
i
ly
ed
e
protec
ctive cov
ver."
[Docum
ment 74-1].

Joint Cla
J
aim Const
tr. State
ement, Ex A, 1
x.
M-Ed
dge conte
ends that the wor "pocke
t
rd
et" shoul
ld

be con
nstrued to mean the struc
t
t
cture for retaini
r
ing a boo
oklight.
Id.

The Court does no accept fully e
t
ot
t
either pa
arty's pr
roposed

constr
ruction of the wo
o
ord "pock
ket."

a.

Po
ouch

The Court finds the term "enclose pouch with an opening at
t
t
ed
one en
nd" to be an oxym
e
moron sin
nce such a "pouch would not be
h"
"enclosed."

7

Moreover, the '670 Patent states:
The pocket 120 can include a closed end
120b at an opposite end from the open end
120a. In other embodiments, both ends of the
pocket can be open ends.
'670 Patent 5:43-45.
Hence, the word "pocket" as used in the Patent, as relating
to a structure with "both" ends open, might be referred to as a
"sleeve" but by no means as a "pouch."

b.

Supports the Booklight

Amazon seeks a construction that the word "pocket" refers
to a structure that supports the booklight.
The Court does not find it appropriate to "pack" into its
construction of the word "pocket" a requirement that its
function be "providing support" for the booklight.

Rather, in

the Patent's context, the essential function of the pocket is
that, in operation, it have within it the substantially flat
portion of the base (planar base).

The Court recognizes that,

in the disclosed embodiments, a consequence of the presence of
the planar base in the pocket could be described as supporting
the booklight.

However, the Court does not find it appropriate

to add that function to the definition of the word "pocket."

8

c.

Removably coupled to the protective cover

Amazon contends that the Patent relates to a booklight that
can be inserted into and removed from the pocket.

Where there

is an immovable coupling, the cover with booklight would be sold
as a single product.
The '670 Patent discloses embodiments in which the planar
base is removably coupled with the pocket.

However, there is no

disavowal of an embodiment in which the planar base is immovably
coupled with the pocket.
The Patent states that "the present invention provides a
booklight that is specially designed for use with an eReader,
and more particularly, for use with a variety of protective
jackets or covers for an eReader." '670 Patent 2:48-51 (emphasis
added).

Amazon reads this as indicating that the sole purpose

of the invention was to provide a booklight that could be
removed from one ebook reader cover and inserted in another.
The Court finds this to be an unreasonably restrictive reading.
The quoted statement is most reasonably read as meaning
that the invention – not a specific product practicing the
invention – could be used with a variety of ebook readers.

For

a specific product to be used interchangeably with a variety of
ebook readers it would be necessary for each such reader to have
the same, or virtually the same, design in regard to pocket
placement and size.
9

Amazon argues that the invention is a booklight separate
from the ebook cover to which it is attached.

However, as the

claims themselves make clear, the invention includes not only
the booklight itself – the light housing, the neck and the
planar base - but also the pocket and characteristics of the
portions of the ebook cover relating to the pocket.
The Court finds no valid reason to "pack" into a
construction of the word "pocket," a "removably coupled"
limitation.

d.

Resolution

The Court construes the word "pocket" to mean: "a
receptacle in which is received the portion of the base that is
referred to as the 'substantially flat portion' in Claims 1 and
6 and as the 'planar base' in Claims 8 and 17."3

2.

Pocket Formation

The four independent claims (i.e., Claims 1, 6, 8, and 17)
and various dependent claims include as a limitation that the
pocket be "formed between [two identified surfaces or parts
thereof]."
M-Edge seeks a construct of the term "formed between" to
mean "located between."
3

Of course, a device with a "pocket," as so defined, must
meet other limitations stated in the respective claims.
10

In the Joint Claim Construction, Amazon sought to have the
term "formed between" construed to require that the pocket be
"formed or sewn into or coupled to [a surface]."
Constr. Statement, Ex. A, 1 [Document 74-1].

Joint Claim

At the hearing,

Amazon abandoned this contention, apparently recognizing that by
use of the words "or sewn" the Court would not be reducing, and
may be expanding, the scope of the claim.
At the hearing, Amazon changed its proposed construction of
"formed between" to be formed "on the interior surface of one of
the first or second covers or coupled to the interior surface of
one of the first and second covers."

Hr'g Tr. 95.

The Court notes, but rejects, Amazon's claim
differentiation argument that accepting M-Edge's construction
would mean that dependent Claim 5 would not depend from Claim 1.
Claim 5 states: "The cover assembly of claim 1, wherein the
pocket is coupled to the interior surface."
55.

'670 Patent 11:54-

Certainly a pocket coupled to the interior surface would be

located between the two identified surfaces.

Claim 5 is, as is

appropriate for a dependent claim, a bit narrower – but included
within – independent Claim 1.
The Court concludes that the construction of the
term "formed between" is "located between."

11

3.

Base Coupling

The four independent claims (Claims 1, 6, 8, and 17) and
various dependent claims include as a limitation that the
substantially flat portion (planar base) is movably coupled to
the base - using somewhat different expressions that are not
materially different.4
Amazon contends that the Court must construe the "movably
coupled" limitation as including a requirement that the base
"rotates or swivels" relative to the substantially flat portion.
At the hearing, Amazon conceded that it was using the words
"rotate" and "swivel" "almost" synonymously but did not specify
any difference warranting the "almost" qualification.
While the Patent discloses embodiments in which the base
moves relative to the substantially flat portion by rotating or
swiveling, there is not a statement in the Patent that this is
the only possible embodiment of the invention claimed.

Nor does

the current state of the record5 suffice to enable the Court to

4

Claim 1 – "the base is capable of moving relative to the
substantially flat portion . . . ." '670 Patent 11:40-43.
Claim 6 – "the base is movably coupled with the substantially
flat portion . . . ." Id. at 12:10-11.
Claim 8 – "the movable base is movably coupled to the planar
base . . . ." Id. at 32-33.
Claim 17 - "the movable base is movably coupled to the elongated
planar base . . . ." Id. at 14:4-5.
5

In view of the discussion at the hearing, the Court is not
foreclosing the possibility that it might reconsider the matter
if evidence established that the invention could not be enabled
12

find that there could be no possible embodiment of the invention
– meeting all limitations – that did not have the base and
planar base coupled so as to permit any movement other than
rotation or swiveling.
On the current record, the Court construes:




4.

The term in Claim 1 "capable of moving relative
to the substantially flat portion" to mean
"capable of moving in any manner relative to the
substantially flat portion."
The term in Claims 6, 8, and 17 "movably coupled
to [or with] the substantially flat portion
[planar base, elongated planar base]" to mean
"attached to the substantially flat portion
[planar base, elongated planar base] so as to
enable relative movement of any type."
Neck

The four independent claims (Claims 1, 6, 8, and 17)
include as a limitation that there be a "neck between the base
and the light housing assembly" [Claims 1, 6] or a "neck
extending from the movable base" [Claims 8, 17].

Dependent

Claim 2 also references the neck.
Amazon seeks a construction that adds a limitation that the
neck be "manipulatable."

M-Edge seeks a construction that the

word "neck" simply means a structure – any structure – that
connects the light housing to the base.

other than with the movement between the base and planar being
rotational or swiveling.
13

The '670 Patent discloses an embodiment in which the neck
is not rigid.
The Court does not find, as Amazon contends, that the
invention could not be enabled with a rigid neck because the
user could not control the direction of the light.

It is true

that the Patent discloses embodiments with necks that the user
adjusts to direct the light on the reading surface.

However,

the invention could be practiced with a rigid neck and an
adjustable light housing or an adjustable lens.
Moreover, the Patent states that
the light assembly housing 40 can be moved
into a position to illuminate the display of
the eReader in several ways. For example, .
. . by flexing or bending the manipulatable
neck 30 of the booklight while the booklight
is in the stored position. Additionally, as
shown in FIG. 3B, the booklight can be
pivoted or swiveled about the base tab 20 .
. . .
'670 Patent 5:59-66.
However, the context of the Patent clearly indicates that
the claimed invention could not be practiced if the neck were
completely immovable, i.e., in a fixed position.

The light

housing, connected to the base by the neck, must be moved into a
position to illuminate the display.
Accordingly, the Court construes "neck" to mean a structure
that connects the light housing to the base that is

14

manipulatable so as to be capable of changing the position of
the light housing.

5.

Flexible Neck

M-Edge seeks a construction that a "flexible neck" is a
neck that "may be moved between a plurality of positions."
Joint Claim Constr. Statement, Ex. A, 5 [Document 74-1].

Amazon

seeks a construction that a "flexible neck" means one that "is
capable of being flexed into a plurality of positions and
maintaining said positions."

Id. (emphasis added).

Claim 2 states only: "wherein the neck is a flexible neck."
'670 Patent 11:45-46.

No additional limitation regarding the

type of flexibility is included.
The specification includes various embodiments that
indicate, for example, that:
The flexible neck 30 then can be moved into
an optimal position to focus the light and
illuminate the display of the eReader by
flexing or bending the manipulatable neck 30
of the booklight while the booklight is in
the open (i.e., pivoted or swiveled)
position. The booklight can be pivoted or
swiveled into numerous positions, depending
on the desired position of the light housing
assembly for illuminating the display of the
eReader.
'670 Patent 6:4-12.
The summary of the invention also includes a reference to
the flexible neck: "The present invention also provides a
15

booklight having a flexible neck such that the user can easily
and conveniently direct the light toward the screen of the
eReader, for example, at an optimum angle to reduce or prevent
glare . . . ." Id. at 2:59-62.
In Column 7, describing Figures 12A-12C, the manipulatable
neck is described as one that "can be a flexible and resilient6
neck."

Id. at 7:62-63.

The Patent then states that the neck is

capable of retaining the manipulated position "such that the
light assembly housing 40 can be placed in an optimal position
for illuminating the display of the eReader."

Id. at 7:64-67.

These descriptions relate to particular embodiments of the
invention – indicating that the purpose of being flexible is so
the user can position the light optimally.

One description

states that the neck, when flexed to a position, would maintain
that position, but that limitation is not carried over into the
claim.

In fact, the prosecution history reflects that in the

course of prosecution, the language "wherein the manipulatable
neck retains a manipulated position" was removed.

See Pl.’s

Resp. Br. 13 [Document 78].
The ordinary definition of "flexible" does not carry with
it the concept of retaining a particular position.

The

dictionary definition simply states that "flexible" means "able

6

Use of the word "resilient" supports a construction whereby
the neck would return to its original position when flexed.
16

to bend without breaking, not stiff or rigid, easily bent,
pliant."

Websters New World Dictionary, Third College Edition

516 (1988).
It is apparent that the invention can be practiced with a
neck that is flexible but not capable of being moved into a
plurality of retained positions.

As discussed above, the

lighting effect of the invention can be achieved by a rigid neck
with an adjustable light housing or lens.

It can also be

achieved with a flexible neck that remains in a fixed position
so long as there is an adjustable light housing or lens to
direct the light as desired or, perhaps less desirably but still
functional, by the user's holding the neck in position.
The Court concludes that the term "flexible neck" in Claim
2 means "not rigid."

6.

Coupled to the Interior Surface

Independent Claims 1, 6, and 8 require a pocket formed
between an interior surface and an exterior surface.

Dependent

claims 5, 7, and 16 add to their respective independent claims
the requirement that "the pocket is coupled to the interior
surface."

'670 Patent 2:59-65.

M-Edge contends that the "coupled to" requirement means
that "the pocket is attached to the interior surface."

Amazon,

perhaps straining to find an issue where none may exist, seeks a
17

construction that requires the pocket to be coupled to the
interior surface "by an adhering means."
The parties do not present a scenario, and none comes to
mind, in which a pocket could be coupled to an interior surface
without some "adhering means."

There would appear to be no

meaningful limitation added by virtue of inserting an "adhering
means" requirement.

However, to the extent that the words "by

an adhering means" would narrow the "coupled to" limitation, the
Court finds no valid basis to narrow it.
Thus, the Court construes the term "coupled to" to mean
"attached to."

7.

Formed at an Edge

Independent Claims 1 and 8 have a location requirement
regarding the pocket opening, stating:
Claim 1 – "pocket . . . has an opening
formed at an edge of one of the interior
surfaces . . . ." '670 Patent 11:28-32.
Claim 8 - "pocket . . . having an opening
formed at an edge of the interior surface .
. . ." '670 Patent 12:23-27.
M-Edge takes the position that if a construction is needed,
the phrase means that "the pocket has an opening located at an
edge of the interior surface."
Ex. A, 6 [Document 74-1].

Joint Claim Constr. Statement,

Amazon proposes: "The pocket has its

18

opening formed at an edge of one of the interior surfaces
adjacent to the spine."

Id.

Amazon seeks to add to the stated limitation that the
opening is formed "at an edge of one of the interior surfaces
adjacent to the spine" because, it argues, "the '670 Patent
describes one of the characteristics of 'the present invention'
as providing a removably attached booklight that 'can be easily
collapsed and stored in a protective jacket or cover of the
eReader, thereby providing a booklight that is easily and
conveniently carried or transported along with the eReader.'"
Defs.' Resp. Claim Constr. Br. 17-18 [Document 79].

Thus,

Amazon argues, the only way to achieve this result is by means
of a pocket opening located adjacent to the spine.
It may be true that no disclosed embodiment could achieve
this result without an opening that is located at an edge of an
interior surface adjacent to the spine.

However, the Patent

does not limit the claimed invention to the specific disclosed
embodiments.

See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 ("although the

specification often describes very specific embodiments of the
invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the
claims to those embodiments").

Moreover, the Patent states:

An exemplary embodiment of a protective
cover 100 for an eReader is illustrated in
FIGS. 3A-3D. . . . The pocket 120 can be
formed, for example, at an upper end of the
interior surface of the rear cover 104 such
19

that the book light can be positioned to
extend from the upper end of the spine
toward the lower end of the spine of the
cover. In other embodiments, the pocket 120
can be formed at other locations on the
interior of the rear cover 104, or at
locations on the interior of the front cover
102. The pocket 120 can be formed on the
same cover as the mounting system or on a
different cover than the cover having the
mounting system.
'670 Patent 5:21-36.
The Court does not find it appropriate to add to the pocket
opening locational limitation, the requirement that the pocket
is located adjacent to the spine.
Accordingly, the Court construes the term "has an opening
formed at an edge of one of the interior surfaces" [Claim 1] and
"having an opening formed at an edge of the interior surface"
[Claim 8] as requiring that the pocket opening be formed at an
edge of an interior surface – but not necessarily adjacent to
the spine.

8.

Extends Away From the Spine

Independent Claim 1 has a limitation requiring that "the
pocket does not traverse the spine and extends away from the
spine . . . ."

'670 Patent 11:30-31.

Amazon contended, in the Claim Construction Chart, that the
term should be construed to mean that "[t]he pocket has its
opening at least partially disposed toward the spine and the
20

pocket extends toward the exterior edge of the protective
cover."

Joint Claim Constr. Statement, Ex. A, 6 [Document 74-

1].
M-Edge took the position that no construction was necessary
and that the term would have its ordinary meaning.

However, the

parties materially differ as to the ordinary meaning of the term
"extends away from the spine."
M-Edge seeks to have the term "extends away from the spine"
construed to mean that it extends in a direction that is not
parallel to the spine. Hr'g Tr. 159-60.

The Court does not

agree with this proposed construction.
Figure 3A shows a pocket 120 with an open end 120a adjacent
to the spine into which the planar base is inserted and a closed
end 120b at the opposite end.

Fig 3A
21

The figure illustrates a pocket extending away from the
spine consistent with the limitation in the claim.
The Patent does not use the word "parallel" at all.
Moreover, a pocket that is parallel to the spine neither extends
toward, or away from, the spine.

Thus the M-Edge proposed

construction would ignore the express claim language making it
critical for the pocket to extend away from the spine.
If the pocket shown in Figure 3A had its open end and
closed end reversed, the pocket would extend toward the spine
and not away from the spine because an item inserted in the
pocket would move toward the spine.

Yet, the pocket would not

be parallel to the spine and thus, according to the M-Edge
proposed construction, would be considered as extending away
from the spine.
Furthermore, the claim states "the pocket does not traverse
the spine and extends away from the spine . . . ."

'670 Patent

11:30-31 (emphasis added). Using the M-Edge construction, the
phrase would mean that the pocket does not traverse the spine
and is not parallel to the spine.

However, the word "parallel"

means "extending in the same direction," and to traverse means
"to cross" or "extend over, across or through."

See Webster’s

New World Dictionary, Third College Edition 979, 1423 (1988).
Thus, by definition, a pocket that is parallel to the spine
would not traverse it.

Moreover, a pocket that traverses the
22

spine would have a portion that extend towards and a portion
that extends away from the spine.

To substitute "not parallel

to the spine" for "extends away from the spine" would render the
"traverse" limitation unnecessary.
The Court construes the term "extends away from the spine"
to mean that "the direction of extension, starting from the open
end of the pocket into which the planar base is inserted, is
away from the spine."

9.

Elongated Planar Base

Independent Claim 17 refers to the structure identified in
other claims as the "substantially flat portion" or "planar
base" as the "elongated planar base."
M-Edge contends that no construction is required but, if
there would be one, proposes a construction that would delete
the "elongated" limitation in Claim 17.

Amazon seeks a

construction of the term "elongated planar base" as "[a] planar
base with its length substantially greater than its width."7
Joint Claim Constr. Statement, Ex. A, 6 [Document 74-1].
The Court doubts that there will be an issue in which the
"elongated" limitation of Claim 17 will be material.
Nevertheless, the Court construes "elongated planar base" to
7

A cynic might note that such a definition leaves room for
future quibbling regarding which dimension of a rectangle should
be considered the width and which the length.
23

mean "a planar base of a shape that has a substantial difference
between its width and length, such as does a rectangle compared
to a square and an oval compared to a circle."

10.

Disposed Within

The four independent claims (Claims 1, 6, 8, and 17)
include as a limitation that the planar base be disposed within
the pocket.8
M-Edge contends that the term "a substantially flat portion
[planar base/elongated planar base] that is disposed within the
pocket [between the two opposing surfaces of the pocket]" in
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 17, should be given its plain and ordinary
meaning, which requires no further construction.

Joint Claim

Constr. Statement, Ex. A, 6-7 [Document 74-1].
Amazon proposes a construction that states: "A
substantially flat portion [planar base/elongated planar base]
that is removably disposed with[in] the pocket [between the two
opposing surfaces of the pocket].

8

Id.

Thus, Amazon seeks to

Claim 1 – "a substantially flat portion that is disposed
within the pocket formed between the interior surface and the
exterior surface . . . ." '670 Patent 11:35-37.
Claim 6 - "a substantially flat portion that is disposed within
the pocket . . . ." Id. at 12:7-8.
Claim 8 - "a planar base disposed within the pocket . . . ." Id.
at 12:29.
Claim 17 - "an elongated planar base disposed within the pocket
. . . ." Id. at 13:10.
24

add the limitation that the planar base is removably disposed
within the pocket.
As discussed above in regard to the construction of
"pocket," the Court does not construe the Patent claims as
requiring removable coupling or disposition of the planar base
with, or in, the pocket.
The Court construes the term "disposed within" to mean
"contained within."

11.

Sized to be Received

Independent Claim 17 has a limitation requiring that the
"elongated planar base [is] sized to be received between the two
opposing surfaces of the pocket and the at least one opening at
the end of the two opposing surfaces."

'670 Patent 13:12-15.

In the Joint Claim Construction, Amazon sought a
construction that the elongated planar base is "sized to be
inserted between the two opposing surfaces of the pocket by
inserting it through the at least one opening at the end of the
two opposing surfaces."

Joint Claim Constr. Statement, Ex. A,

6-7 [Document 74-1].
As discussed at the hearing, the Court finds no reason to
render the term "sized to be received" complicated.

Therefore,

the Court construes the term "sized to be received" to mean "of
a size that will enable it to fit."
25

D.

Definiteness
1.

Interior Surface Includes an Axis

Dependent Claim 4 states: "The cover assembly of claim 1,
wherein the interior surface further includes an axis and the
interior surface is bendable around the axis, and
wherein the pocket is formed at an angle with respect to the
axis."

'670 Patent 11:49-53.

Amazon contends that the reference to the interior surface
lacks a proper antecedent basis and thus is indefinite.

M-Edge

contends that the term refers collectively to the interior
surface of the first cover (shown in Figure 3A element 102) and
the interior surface of the second cover (shown in Figure 3A
element 104) as described in Claim 1.
Claim 1, however, refers to two separate interior surfaces:
"a first and second cover each including, an interior surface
and an exterior surface," with "a spine connecting the first and
second covers."

'670 Patent 11:23-25.

A single interior

surface is not described in Claim 1, nor shown in Figure 3A as
M-Edge contends.

Additionally, the Court does not find any

structure that could be the "axis" referred to in Claim 4 other
than the spine.
As stated in the Patent specification, referring to Figures
3A-3D:

26

a spine connecting the first cover 104 to
the second cover 102, wherein the first
cover 104 and the second cover [1029] are
pivotable with respect [to] each other about
the spine
'670 Patent 9:37-40.
Thus, the term "wherein the interior surface further
includes an axis and the interior surface is bendable around the
axis" is indefinite.

Accordingly, the Court finds dependent

Claim 4 to be "insolubly ambiguous,"10 indefinite and therefore
void.

2.

Sized to Secure the eReader

Independent Claim 6 includes a limitation that "a portion
of the interior surface of one of the first and second covers is
sized to secure the eReader."

'670 Patent 11:59-61.

Amazon contends that this limitation is indefinite.
Court finds the limitation clear.

The

The cover simply must be of a

size to hold the eReader that it covers.

3.

Exterior Cover Sized to Wrap Around

Amazon contends that this limitation is indefinite because
the term "exterior cover" has no antecedent basis.
9

Claim 8

Due to an obvious typographical error, referred to as
"second cover 104" in the Patent.
10
Certainly, the claim could have been drafted to state what
M-Edge contends it should be construed to mean. But such a
claim would not depend on Claim 1 since the spine would be an
axis.
27

includes a reference to "a protective cover including, a first
and second cover" each of which covers include an "exterior
surface and an interior surface." '670 Patent 12:18-20.

There

is no reference to an "exterior cover."
However, in context, it is most reasonable to consider the
term "exterior cover" in Claim 12 to be a reference to the term
"protective cover" in Claim 8.

Hence, dependent Claim 12 can be

construed to mean that the protective cover in Claim 8 must be
of a size to wrap around the eReader that it covers.
Accordingly, the Court does not find dependent Claim 12 to
be indefinite.

4.

Mounting Device

Dependent Claim 13 states: "The cover and light assembly
according to claim 8, wherein the interior surface includes at
least one mounting device disposed on the interior surface."
'670 Patent 12:49-51.
Amazon contends that this limitation is indefinite.
Specifically, it is asserted to be indefinite because the claim
does not identify which interior surface is referenced therein.
The Court finds the limitation adequately clear in
context.

The Patent refers to a mounting device utilized to

secure the eReader to the cover.
9:40-41; 9:62-10:7.

See, e.g.,'670 Patent 2:28-30;

Such a mounting device would, necessarily,
28

be on the particular interior surface that would contain the
eReader being secured.

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes the
following with regard to the construction of the claim terms at
issue:
A.

Construction
1.

In Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, and
17, the term "pocket" means "a receptacle in
which is received the portion of the base that is
referred to as the 'substantially flat portion'
in Claims 1 and 6 and as the 'planar base' in
Claims 8 and 17."

2.

In Claims 1, 6, 8, 11, 14, and 17, the term
"formed between" means "located between."

3.

Base Coupling:
a.

b.

4.

The term in Claim 1 "capable of moving
relative to the substantially flat portion"
means "capable of moving in any manner
relative to the substantially flat portion."
The term in Claims 6, 8, and 17 "movably
coupled to [or with] the substantially flat
portion [planar base, elongated planar
base]" means "attached to the substantially
flat portion [planar base, elongated planar
base] so as to enable relative movement of
any type."

In Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, and 17, the term "neck"
means "a structure that connects the light
housing to the base that is manipulatable so as
to be capable of changing the position of the
light housing."

29

5.
6.

In Claims 5, 7, and 16, the term "coupled to"
means "attached to."

7.

The term "has an opening formed at an edge of one
of the interior surfaces" [Claim 1] and "having
an opening formed at an edge of the interior
surface" [Claim 8] means that the pocket opening
must be formed at an edge of an interior surface
– but not necessarily adjacent to the spine.

8.

The term "extends away from the spine" in Claim 1
means that "the direction of extension, starting
from the open end of the pocket into which the
planar base is inserted, is away from the spine."

9.

The term "elongated planar base" in Claim 17
means "a planar base of a shape that has a
substantial difference between its width and
length, such as does a rectangle compared to a
square and an oval compared to a circle."

10.

In Claims 1, 6, 8, and 17, the term "disposed
within" means "contained within."

11.

B.

The term "flexible neck" in Claim 2 means "not
rigid."

The term "sized to be received" in Claim 17 means
"of a size that will enable it to fit."

Indefiniteness
1.

The Court finds dependent Claim 4 void for
indefiniteness.

2.

The Court does not find any other claim void for
indefiniteness.

SO ORDERED, on Thursday, November 21, 2013.

/s/__________
Marvin J. Garbis
United States District Judge
30