Lear Corporation v. NHK Seating of America Inc.

Filing 96

ORDER ADOPTING Special Master's Report Construing Patent Claim Terms. Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (KJac)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LEAR CORPORATION,
Case No. 13-cv-12937
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson

Plaintiff,
v.
NHK SEATING OF AMERICA INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORT
CONSTRUING PATENT CLAIM TERMS
Plaintiff Lear Corporation holds five patents generally directed to headrests that move upon
a front or rear impact to a vehicle. Lear claims that Defendant NHK Seating of America makes or
sells products (or aids others in making and selling products) that are covered by some of the
claims of these five patents. In particular, Lear asserts that NSA is liable for directly or indirectly
infringing claims 14, 45, 49, 57, 62, 86, 90, and 94 of U.S. Patent No. 5,378,043; claim 15 of U.S.
Patent No. 6,655,733; claims 4 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,631,949; claims 1, 4, 5, 18, and 19 of
U.S. Patent No. 7,455,357; and claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 8,434,818.
Like most patent cases, Lear and NSA dispute the scope of the claims. NSA reads certain
claims more narrowly than Lear does (or, depending on perspective, Lear reads them more broadly
than NSA). In all, the parties disputed 15 claim terms (with one of the terms appearing in four
patents).
Given the considerable number of claim terms that the parties asked this Court to construe,
and that the terms were spread across five patents (with their own prosecution histories), the Court
believed that the interpretative task would be considerably expedited if it were referred to a special
1

master for recommended construction. The parties selected Retired U.S. Court of Claims Judge
James F. Davis. (PageID.1213.) The Court contemplated that after Judge Davis issued his report
and recommendation, each party would ask this Court to re-construe up to five terms, and, for
purposes of preserving issues for appeal, would object to any number of his constructions.
(PageID.2986.)
On April 23, 2018, Judge Davis issued his report. (PageID.3358–3384.) Lear did not object
to any of the proposed constructions. And while NSA did object, NSA did not specify the five
terms that it wanted the Court to re-construe. Instead, for the reasons stated in its claimconstruction briefing and at the hearing, NSA objected “to each and every claim construction that
[did] not comport with [its] claim constructions” and “reserve[d] its right to appeal any
construction that the Court adopts from the Special Master Report . . . that differs from [its] claim
construction.” (PageID.3389.)
The Court, in addition to conducting the claim construction hearing, has reviewed all of
the parties’ briefing and Judge Davis’ report. Having done so, the Court ADOPTS Judge Davis’
constructions (save for one claim phrase that NSA indicated does not require construction). The
Court’s constructions are set forth in the attached chart.
SO ORDERED.
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 21, 2018

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
and any unrepresented parties via the Court=s ECF System to their respective email or First Class
U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on June 21, 2018.
s/Keisha Jackson
Case Manager

3

Claim Language

Lear’s Proposed
NSA’s Proposed
Construction
Construction
“a seatback frame” (’043, ’818, Plain meaning applies and no “A rigid body structure that
’949, ’357 patents)
construction is necessary.
substantially surrounds the
perimeter of the seatback to
In the event that a construction provide structural support for
is deemed appropriate, “A rigid the seatback.”
structure that supports the
seatback.”
’043 patent (January 3, 1995)
“seatback frame is shaped as an Plain meaning applies and no “Seatback frame has two side
inverted ‘U’” (’043 patent)
construction is necessary.
members connected at the top
by a cross member, but
unconnected at the bottom.”
“a bushing” (’043 patent)
“A liner or sleeve used to limit “A lining for an opening used to
the size of an opening, resist limit the size of the opening,
abrasion, or serve as a guide.” resist abrasion, or serve as a
guide.”
“post” (’043 patent)
Plain meaning applies and no “An extension, pillar, or leg
construction is necessary.
that extends downwardly from
the headrest.”
“seatback frame comprises . . . Plain meaning applies and no “the cross [frame] member is a
a cross [frame] member” (’043 construction is necessary.
part of the seatback frame, and
patent)
is a member that crosses from
one side of the frame to the
other”

4

Court’s Construction
“A rigid structure that supports
the seatback.”

“seatback frame is shaped as an
inverted U having two risers or
sides joined by a cross frame
member”
“a lining for an opening to resist
abrasion or serve as a guide”

No construction is necessary.

No construction is necessary.

Claim Language

“a
headrest
arrangement
including a headrest and a
headrest extension, the headrest
extension having one of a guide
member and a follower and an
impact target located below the
one of a guide member and a
follower” (’949 patent)

Lear’s Proposed
NSA’s Proposed
Construction
Construction
’949 patent (October 14, 2003)
“The headrest arrangement “Headrest extension has either
includes: a headrest, a headrest a guide member or a follower
extension having one of a guide and has an impact target.”
member and a follower, and an
impact target.”

5

Court’s Construction

“The headrest arrangement
includes: a headrest, a headrest
extension having one of a guide
member and a follower, and an
impact target”

Claim Language

“upon impact to the vehicle one
of a rearward load by the
occupant upon the impact target
and the forward inertia of the
headrest
irrespective
of
whether occupant is in contact
with the seatback will cause the
follower to engage the
guideway in such a manner as
to cause the headrest to move in
a manner so as to support a head
of an occupant” (’733 patent)

Lear’s Proposed
NSA’s Proposed
Construction
Construction
’733 patent (December 2, 2003)
Plain meaning should apply and “Deployment will occur when a
no construction is necessary.
rearward load by the occupant
is applied to the impact target.
In the event that a construction Deployment will also be caused
is deemed appropriate, “Upon by forward inertia of the
impact to the vehicle, either a headrest
irrespective
of
rearward load by the occupant whether occupant is in contact
upon the impact target or the with the seatback”
forward inertia of the headrest
will cause the follower to
engage the guideway in such a
manner as to cause the headrest
to move so as to support a head
of an occupant.”

6

Court’s Construction

“upon impact to the vehicle,
either a rearward load by the
occupant upon the impact target
or the forward inertia of the
headrest, will cause the
headrest to move so as to
support a head of an occupant”

Claim Language
“a seatback” (’733 patent)

Lear’s Proposed
NSA’s Proposed
Construction
Construction
Plain meaning applies and no “Substantially vertical portion
construction is necessary.
of a seat structure, separate
from the headrest arrangement,
that supports the back of the
occupant.”

7

Court’s Construction
No construction is necessary.
(Although the parties initially
disputed the meaning of this
term,
NSA
subsequently
withdrew its request for
construction of this term.)

Claim Language

“bar” (’357 patent)

Lear’s Proposed
NSA’s Proposed
Construction
Construction
’357 Patent (November 25, 2008)
Plain meaning applies and no “An elongated rigid rod.”
construction
is
necessary
because the word “bar” does
not appear in the claim outside
of the claim term “four-bar
mechanism,” construed below.

If the Court decides a
construction is necessary, Lear
proposes that “bar” be
construed to encompass at least
“any suitable component, such
as a metal wire or rod, a
stamping, a molded or cast
component.”
“link” (’357 patent)
“Any suitable component, such
as such as a metal wire or rod, a
stamping, a molded or cast
component”
“four-bar mechanism” (’357 “A mechanism that includes
patent)
four connected bars or links for
transferring force”

Court’s Construction

No construction separate from
construction of “link” and
“four-bar mechanism”

“A rigid member used for “Any suitable component , such
connecting two structures.”
as a metal wire or rod, a
stamping, a molded or cast
component”
“Four rigid bars pivotally “A mechanism that includes
connected to each other to form four connected bars or links for
a closed loop and to move in transferring force”
parallel planes.”

8

Claim Language

Lear’s Proposed
Construction

NSA’s Proposed
Construction
’818 patent (May 7, 2013)
“lower cross member” (’818 Plain meaning applies and no “A horizontal member that
patent)
construction is necessary.
crosses the seatback from one
side to the other side of the
frame at or near the bottom of
the frame.”
“cross bar” (’818 patent)
Plain meaning applies and no “A horizontal bar that crosses
construction is necessary.
the seatback from one side to
the other side of the frame.”
In the event that a construction
is deemed appropriate, “A
horizontal member of upper
armature.”

Court’s Construction

“A horizontal member that
extends between the two side
frame members at or near the
bottom of the frame.”
No construction is necessary.

(Although the parties initially
disputed the meaning of this
term,
NSA
subsequently
withdrew its request for
construction of this term.
(PageID.2966)).
“predetermined force” (’818 Plain meaning applies and no A force determined before No construction is necessary.
patent)
construction is necessary.
being applied.
(Although the parties initially
disputed the meaning of this
term,
NSA
subsequently
withdrew its request for
construction of this term.)

9

Claim Language
“transfer
patent)

member”

Lear’s Proposed
NSA’s Proposed
Court’s Construction
Construction
Construction
(’818 Plain meaning applies and no Subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th “transfer member” is not
subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.
construction is necessary.
Paragraph
The recited function is to “to
move and act upon the upper
armature and to slide the
transverse bar along the cam
surface in response to a
predetermined force applied to
the impact body to move the
head restraint toward the
occupant.”
The structure disclosed in the
specification that performs this
function is a linking rod 122
that links the upper armature
and the lower armature with a
straight leading portion that
extends above an upper
armature and a bend located
below the leading portion so as
to allow some play in the
movement of the impact plate.

10