AntennaSys, Inc. v. AQYR Technologies, Inc.
Filing
48
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER- AntennaSys, Inc., claims that AQYR Technologies International, Inc., has infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,432,868 B2 (" '868 Patent"). In this Memorandum and Order, I construe several disputed patent terms on which the infringement claim is based. So Ordered by Judge Paul J. Barbadoro.(js)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
AntennaSys, Inc.
v.
Case No. 17-cv-105-PB
Opinion No. 2018 DNH 259
AQYR Technologies, Inc. and
Windmill International, Inc.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
AntennaSys, Inc., claims that AQYR Technologies
International, Inc., has infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,432,868 B2
(“‘868 Patent”).
In this Memorandum and Order, I construe
several disputed patent terms on which the infringement claim is
based.
I.
A.
Background
Introduction
The ‘868 Patent claims a portable antenna positioner
apparatus and method for communicating with satellites.
The
patent’s co-inventors each assigned their undivided one half
interests in the patent to their respective employers,
AntennaSys and Windmill International, Inc.
AntennaSys and
Windmill, in turn, entered into a License Agreement
(“Agreement”) that granted Windmill the exclusive right to
exploit the ‘868 Patent under the terms and conditions of the
Agreement.
The Agreement obligates Windmill to prosecute
infringement claims against third parties but permits AntennaSys
to step in if Windmill fails to act within the time limits
specified in the Agreement.
AntennaSys claims that AQYR, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Windmill, is selling several products that infringe the ‘868
Patent.
It further asserts that it has standing to sue for
infringement because Windmill has failed to enforce the ‘868
Patent against its subsidiary. 1
B.
Prior Art
When the ‘868 Patent was approved, “[e]xisting antenna
positioners [were] heavy structures that [were] bulky and
require[d] many workers to manually setup (sic) and initially
orient.”
‘868 Patent at 1:37-39.
Some systems were so heavy
that multiple workers were required to lift a disassembled
apparatus.
See ‘868 Patent at 1:44-47.
Others were mounted on
trucks and were difficult to ship by airplane.
at 1:39-41.
See ‘868 Patent
The ‘868 Patent seeks to address these deficiencies
by patenting a “compact, lightweight, portable self-aligning
1
AntennaSys has also brought other claims against Windmill and
AQYR that this Memorandum and Order does not address. Although
the infringement claim is asserted only against AQYR, Windmill
shares an interest with its subsidiary in supporting claim
construction. Accordingly, in the remainder of this Memorandum
and Order, I use Windmill to refer to Windmill and AQYR
collectively.
2
antenna positioner that [could be] easily moved by a single user
and allowed for rapid setup and alignment.”
‘868 Patent at
1:20-25.
C.
The Patent
AntennaSys’s infringement claim is focused principally on
Claims 1 and 6 of the ‘868 Patent.
I reproduce both claims
below and highlight the terms that are in dispute.
Claim 1
What is claimed is:
1. A portable antenna positioner comprising:
an antenna with a centrally located pivot point;
an elevation motor coupled with said antenna wherein
said antenna rotates about said centrally located
pivot point in elevation when moved by said
elevation motor;
at least one positioning arm coupled with said
elevation motor;
an azimuth motor coupled with said at least one
positioning arm;
a positioner base coupled with said azimuth motor
wherein said positioner base houses a computer
configured to control said antenna; and,
said antenna, said elevation motor, said at least one
positioning arm, said azimuth motor and said
positioning base configured to be stowed and
deployed and carried by a single person.
Claim 6
6.
A method for utilizing a portable antenna
positioner comprising:
coupling an antenna with an elevation motor wherein
said antenna comprises a centrally located pivot
point and wherein said antenna is configured to
rotate about said centrally located pivot point in
elevation when moved by said elevation motor;
3
coupling at least one positioning arm with said an
elevation motor;
coupling said at least one positioning arm with an
azimuth;
coupling said azimuth motor with a positioner base;
and,
delivering said antenna, said elevation motor, said at
least one positioning arm, said azimuth motor
wherein said antenna is configured to be stowed and
deployed and wherein said antenna, said elevation
motor, said at least one positioning arm and said
azimuth motor are configured to be carried by a
single person.
II. Legal Standard
“[T]he claims of a patent define the invention to which the
patentee is entitled the right to exclude.”
Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citation
omitted).
As a result, “a claim construction analysis must
begin and remain centered on the claim language itself, for it
is the language the patentee has chosen to ‘particularly point[]
out and distinctly claim[] the subject matter which the patentee
regards as his invention.’”
Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari
Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir.
2004)(internal citation omitted).
The words of a patent claim
“are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.”
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
The “ordinary and customary meaning of a
claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person
4
of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the
invention....”
Id. at 1313.
I must construe claims “in light of the appropriate context
Aventis Pharm. Inc. v. Amino
in which the claim term is used.”
Chems. Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Thus,
although the written description and other portions of the
specification may contextualize a term, “they cannot be used to
narrow a claim term to deviate from the plain and ordinary
meaning unless the inventor” intended to disclaim or disavow the
claim scope.
Id. (citing Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus.,
Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
When construing a
disputed claim term, other claims made in the patent can be
“valuable sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim
term.”
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314.
Patent claims are not construed in the abstract, but rather
“in the context in which the term was presented and used by the
patentee, as it would have been understood by a person of
ordinary skill in the field of the invention.”
Fenner Invs.,
Ltd. v. Cellco P’ship, 778 F.3d 1320, 1322–23 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The specification “is always highly relevant to the claim
construction analysis” and is usually “the single best guide to
the meaning of a disputed term.”
WesternGeco LLC v. ION
Geophysical Corp., 889 F.3d 1308, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting
5
Phillips, 889 F.3d at 1315).
The prosecution history and patent
specification constitute intrinsic evidence and deserve priority
in claim construction.
Id. at 1323 (citation omitted).
In the
rare event that analysis of the intrinsic evidence does not
resolve an ambiguity in a disputed claim term, I may turn to
extrinsic evidence, such as inventor and expert testimony,
treatises and technical writings.
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.
Although extrinsic evidence may be helpful in construing claims,
the intrinsic evidence is afforded the greatest weight in
determining what a person of ordinary skill would have
understood a claim to mean.
V–Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Grp.
SpA, 401 F.3d 1307, 1310–11 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
III. Analysis
The parties have asked me to construe seven groups of
terms.
Four of these groups do not require construction, and
one term in the fifth group has a plain but not commonly
understood meaning that I will construe for the assistance of
the jury.
I devote the remainder of the Memorandum and Order to
the two groups of terms that lie at the heart of this dispute.
A. Terms 1-4
1. “Antenna”
Proposed constructions:
AntennaSys Device connected to a receiver/transmitter to
communicate with satellites
6
Windmill
Plain and ordinary meaning. To the extent that
meaning needs to be defined:
A structure for receiving or transmitting
electromagnetic signals
2. “Pivot Point”
Proposed constructions:
AntennaSys A location about which an object rotates
Windmill
Plain and ordinary meaning. To the extent that
meaning needs to be defined:
The location at which something turns or oscillates
3. “Elevation” and “Elevation Motor”
Proposed constructions:
AntennaSys elevation – an angle up or down from the horizon
Windmill
elevation motor – mechanism to position the antenna
to an angle up or down from the horizon
Plain and ordinary meaning. To the extent that
meaning needs to be defined:
elevation – process of bringing something to a
higher position
motor – a machine used to transform power from some
other form into mechanical motion to elevate a
corresponding structure
4. “Positioning Arm” and “Positioning Base”
Proposed constructions:
AntennaSys positioning arm - structure to connect a base to an
antenna for the purpose of positioning the antenna
7
Windmill
positioning base – a structure that houses
electronic components
Plain and ordinary meaning. To the extent that
meaning needs to be defined:
arm – a thing resembling an arm in branching from a
main stem
positioning – the action of manipulating an object
in relation to another object or for a certain
configuration
base – foundation or part upon which an object
rests
positioning arm – a thing resembling an arm that is
used to manipulate an object in relation to another
object or for a certain configuration
The point of claim construction is to resolve “disputed
meanings and technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to
explain what the patentee covered by its claims.”
U.S. Surgical
Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In the present case, all of the disputed claim terms have
plain and ordinary meanings; neither party has pointed to any
persuasive evidence to suggest that a specialized meaning was
intended.
The parties have also failed to point to any
meaningful differences between their proposed constructions.
Nor have they persuaded me that the definitions they propose
amount to anything more than the type of “meaningless verbiage”
that should not be the end product of an exercise in claim
construction.
See Harris Corp. v. IXYS Corp, 114 F.3d 1149,
8
1152 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
I, therefore, decline to construe the
first four groups of disputed claim terms. 2
B. Term 5 – “Azimuth Motor”
Proposed constructions:
AntennaSys Mechanism to position the antenna left or right
along the horizon
Windmill
Motor that rotates positioning arm from side to
side
The parties’ proposed constructions of “azimuth motor” do
not differ materially and neither party has pointed to any
persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that supports one of
the proposed constructions over the other.
Nevertheless,
because some members of the jury who may be called upon to
decide this case may not be familiar with the term “azimuth,” I
will give that term its usual meaning and construe “azimuth
motor” to mean “a motor to position the antenna left or right
along the horizon.”
2
I will, of course, reserve the right to reassess the situation
later in the litigation if either party is able to persuade me
that I can assist the parties in resolving their dispute by
further defining a disputed term.
9
C. Term 6 – “an antenna with a centrally located pivot point”
and “said antenna comprises a centrally located pivot
point”
Proposed constructions:
AntennaSys centrally located – a location closer to the center
than the perimeter of the antenna; not necessarily
on the antenna
See above for “antenna” and “pivot point.”
Windmill
An antenna that pivots from its center point
The parties disagree as to whether the term “centrally
located pivot point” describes a pivot point located at the
precise center of the antenna, as Windmill claims, or whether,
as AntennaSys argues, the pivot point may be located at any
point that is closer to the center of the antenna than the
perimeter.
To support its view that the pivot point must lie at the
center point of the antenna, Windmill relies primarily on the
doctrine of prosecution history disclaimer.
Under this
doctrine, a patentee may not recapture a meaning for a claim
term that the patentee disavowed in order to obtain the patent.
Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Shire Pharm., Inc., 8339 F.3d 1111, 1119
(Fed. Cir. 2016).
To disclaim a proposed meaning, the evidence
of repudiation must be “clear and unmistakable.”
10
3M Innovative
Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
2013).
I see no such disclaimer in this case.
The original application for what became the ‘868 Patent
claimed in pertinent part “an antenna with a centrally located
pivot point” without specifying that the antenna must rotate
about the pivot point in elevation.
See Doc. No. 33-10 at 127.
Instead, it limited what was claimed to a device with “an
elevation motor coupled with said antenna wherein said antenna
may rotate up to 180 degrees in elevation.”
See id.
The patent examiner originally rejected the claim on the
ground that it was obvious in light of Wise et al, U.S.
Application No. 22110046258 (Wise), which also taught a portable
antenna positioner.
See Doc. No. 33-10 at 65.
In reaching this
conclusion, the examiner noted that, like Wise, the proposed
patent claimed a device with a centrally located pivot point.
He then went on to note that although Wise did not expressly
describe an antenna that was rotatable 180 degrees in elevation,
it nevertheless was obvious in light of Wise that an antenna
positioner could have this capacity because Wise teaches that
“the antenna support member is pivotable between a first
position and a second position at a selected angle to establish
elevational alignment with the satellite . . . .” (emphasis in
original).
See id.
11
The patentees responded by doing two things.
First, they
amended their claim in pertinent part to delete the 180 degree
rotational limitation and instead claimed “an elevation motor
coupled with said antenna wherein said antenna rotates about
said centrally located pivot point.”
See Doc. No. 33-10 at 50.
Second, they directly addressed the examiner’s obviousness
argument by pointing to Figure 3 in Wise and noting that “[t]he
antenna of Wise ‘258 does not pivot at the center of the antenna
but rather pivots on one side of the antenna.
This limits the
range that the antenna may face from completely straight up to a
horizon when fully extended for example.”
56.
12
See Doc. No. 33-10 at
The patentees’ amendment and argument did not initially persuade
the examiner, who responded by stating, “[a]pplicant argues that
the antenna of Wise does not pivot at the center of the antenna,
examiner respectfully disagrees.
Wise does teach in Figure 7
the antenna 20 rotating about its center 80.
Since Wise does
show all claimed structure, the 102 rejection is proper.”
See
Doc. No. 33-10 at 44.
The patentees did not give up when their amended claim was
rejected.
Instead, they amended the claim again to cover “an
elevation motor coupled with said antenna wherein said antenna
rotates about said pivot point in elevation when moved by said
13
elevation motor.”
See Doc. No. 33-10 at 31. They also explained
to the examiner that,
Wise moves about a centrally located pivot point
in the polarization axis (i.e., orthogonal to the
elevation axis) and NOT when moved by the elevation
motor. Wise does not rotate about the centrally
located pivot point in elevation as the pivot point
in elevation for Wise is located at the junction of
antenna support member 114 and base unit housing
118, i.e., at the side of the antenna.
Doc. No. 33-10 at 36 (emphases in original).
The patentee’s amendment and explanation apparently satisfied
the examiner, as he issued the patent as amended and ultimately
concluded that “Wise et al does not teach an elevation motor
coupled with an antenna wherein the antenna rotates about the
centrally located pivot point in elevation when moved by the
elevation motor.”
See Doc. No. 33-10 at 16.
14
For reasons that I do not quite understand, Windmill
contends that this prosecution history demonstrates that the
patentees disclaimed any meaning for a “centrally located pivot
point” other than one that specifies a location at the center
point of the antenna.
See Defendants’ Opening Claim
Construction Brief, Doc. No. 33 at 21-25.
plainly wrong.
This contention is
Instead, the patentees overcame the examiner’s
initial conclusion that their invention was obvious in light of
Wise by amending the patent to make it clear that, unlike Wise,
which claimed an antenna positioner with an elevation pivot
point at the side of the device, their invention claimed a
positioner with a centrally located elevation pivot point.
At
no point during the prosecution of their claims did the
patentees ever suggest that the elevation pivot point for their
device must be located at the center point of the antenna.
Accordingly, I reject Windmill’s prosecution disclaimer
argument. 3
3
Windmill also briefly argues that its proposed construction
must be adopted because the alternative construction proposed by
AntennaSys would render the challenged claims indefinite. I
reject this argument. AntennaSys’s proposed construction is not
indefinite because a determination as to whether a pivot point
is centrally located under its definition can be made
objectively by simple measurement.
15
AntennaSys points to several types of intrinsic and
extrinsic evidence to support its proposed construction but what
I ultimately find persuasive is its contention that the patent’s
contextual use of the term “centrally” plainly describes a pivot
point that is located closer to the center than the perimeter of
the antenna.
Windmill has failed to identify any persuasive
evidence to support its alternative construction.
Accordingly,
I agree with AntennaSys that a pivot point is centrally located
under the ‘868 Patent if its “location is closer to the center
than the perimeter of the antenna; not necessarily on the
antenna.” 4
D. Term 7 – “configured to be stowed and deployed and carried
by a single person,” “configured to be stowed and
deployed,” and “configured to be carried by a single
person”
“Term 7” as presented by the parties includes three
relevant terms that warrant construction: “configured to be
stowed and deployed,” “carried” and “single person.”
I will
handle each in turn.
4
AntennaSys argues that the pivot point need not be on the
antenna itself and it cites to an embodiment that appears to
depict a pivot point located on the positioning arm rather than
the antenna itself. Windmill has not challenged AntennaSys’s
proposed construction on this point. Accordingly, I adopt
AntennaSys’s proposed construction.
16
1. “Configured to be Stowed and Deployed”
Proposed constructions:
AntennaSys stowed and deployed - term that refers to two
states for the portable antenna positioner: One to
be stored in an inactive position, and another into
an active operating position.
Windmill
made so that, without needing to remove any of
these components or parts, the components can be
folded into themselves for storage or carrying as a
selfcontained unit as well as unfolded and
positioned for use from a self-contained unit “by a
single person”
The parties’ disagreement over the meaning of “stowed and
deployed” is focused on whether the term “stowed” encompasses
any device that can be stored in an inactive position, as
AntennaSys argues, or whether it requires a device that is
stored by folding into itself, as Windmill contends.
After
considering all the evidence that bears on the issue, I conclude
that Windmill has the better argument.
In a case like this, where the claim language is not
dispositive, the meaning of a disputed claim term can often be
discerned by reviewing the patent’s specification.
When
undertaking this task, however, a court must be careful not to
cross the “fine line” that separates a proper use of the
specification as a source of meaning from an improper use of the
specification to read into a claim a limitation that it does not
17
contain.
Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898,
904 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In the present case, the specification repeatedly, and
unambiguously, supports Windmill’s narrower reading of “stowed
and deployed.”
First, the patent supports this construction
because it states that one of the deficiencies with the prior
art was that existing systems “require over a half dozen storage
containers that each require one or more workers to lift”
whereas the patent notes that the described invention “has no
loose parts and requires no tools.”
‘868 Patent at 7:23.
‘868 Patent at 1:44-46;
Second, the specification repeatedly
describes the invention as “collapsible” without ever suggesting
that it could also be stowed in a disassembled state.
See,
e.g., ‘868 Patent at 1:54-55 (“By collapsing the antenna
positioner, it may be readily carried by hand or shipped in a
compact container.”); ‘868 Patent at 7:45-46 (“FIG. 5 shows a
perspective view of an embodiment of the invention in the
collapsed position.”); ‘868 Patent at 8:3-4 (“self contained
(sic) lightweight, collapsible and rugged antenna positioner”).
Finally, the only figures in the patent that depict embodiments
of the invention in a stowed state all depict a device that is
stowed by collapsing onto itself.
See ‘868 Patent at 7:46-47
(“FIG. 5 shows a perspective view of an embodiment of the
18
invention in the stowed position.”); ‘868 Patent at 7:48-49
(“FIG. 6 shows an isometric view of an embodiment of the
invention in the collapsed position.”); ‘868 Patent at 7:50-51
(“FIG. 7 shows an isometric view of the bottom of an embodiment
of the invention in the stowed position.”).
Read together,
these references clearly demonstrate the patentees’ intention to
claim an antenna positioner that is stowed by folding into
itself.
19
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
20
In contrast to the strong evidence supporting Windmill’s
proposed construction, AntennaSys cites only to Figure 11 as a
source of intrinsic evidence to support its contention that
patented invention encompasses antenna positioners that can be
stowed by disassembly into component parts.
But his figure has
no bearing on the present dispute because it is merely a flow
chart that depicts the manufacturing process for one or more
embodiments of the invention.
‘868 Patent at 16:10-14.
21
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Retractable Technologies
provides a helpful analogue to this dispute.
See Retractable
Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296, 1305
(Fed. Cir. 2011), reh’g denied and reh’g en banc denied 659 F.3d
1369 (2011).
In that case, the Federal Circuit reversed a
district court order construing a patent for retractable medical
syringes.
See id. at 1298.
The circuit held that the claimed
“body” of the patented syringe must be limited to a one-piece
structure even though the claim language had no such limitation.
It observed that the specification distinguished syringes
comprised of multiple pieces, referenced one-piece syringes at
multiple places in the specification, and included no
embodiments contemplating a multi-piece body.
1305.
See id. at 1304-
Accordingly, the court explained that
While the claims leave open the possibility that the
recited “body” may encompass a syringe composed of
more than one piece, the specifications tell us
otherwise. They expressly recite that “the invention”
has a body constructed as a single structure,
expressly distinguish the invention from the prior art
based on this feature, and only disclose[s]
embodiments that are expressly limited to having a
body that is a single piece.
Id. at 1305.
So too here.
Therefore, I construe the term “configured to
be stowed and deployed” to mean “made so that the components can
22
be collapsed into themselves for storage or carrying as a selfcontained unit and unfolded for use.”
2. “Carried”
Proposed constructions:
AntennaSys carried by – Plain and ordinary meaning. In the
alternative: Lifted and moved by a single personusing only their own physical abilities-from one
place to another
Windmill
carried – Transported on one’s person
“The term ‘carried’ cannot include the concept of a
person using an external means to take the weight
of the antenna positioner off of that person, like
a dolly or rolling suitcase, etc.”
At the Markman hearing, I indicated that a construction of
“carried” that would include an operator using a dolly or wagon
would be problematic.
The parties have since submitted
supplemental briefing on the term.
At his deposition, Dr. Shina, the expert for AntennaSys,
stated that his definition was broad enough to include a “person
using a mechanical device such as a dolly or a truck or an
external mechanical device . . . [a]s long as the person is the
only person doing it that does not require the assistance of
another person.”
Doc. No. 33-5 at 128:5-10.
According to
AntennaSys, Shina was stating that using a dolly was not
excluded, so long as the person could carry it afterwards.
Hearing Transcript at 91.
See
In any event, I conclude that using a
23
mechanical device to transport the invention would contravene
the plain and ordinary meaning of the word “carried.”
As both parties agree, the idea of “carrying” in the
context of this case includes a requirement that the “carrier”
bears the entire weight of the object on herself.
It may be
carried by handles, or in a backpack, or clutched in one’s arms.
But the use of a dolly, truck, or rolling device would not
constitute carrying.
Windmill’s proposed construction, “transported on one’s
person,” relies on an inapposite usage.
As the dictionary it
cites notes, that usage is relevant when one asks, “Do you carry
a watch?”
See Doc. No. 46-4, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of
Current English 200 (9th Ed. 1995).
We are concerned here, by
contrast, with the idea of “carrying from place to place.”
The
proposal by AntennaSys, “Lifted and moved by a single person –
using only their own physical abilities – from one place to
another,” is closer to the mark.
Because, however, the proposed
definition does not convey the idea of the carrier bearing the
entire weight of the device, I will add that requirement to my
construction.
I construe the term “carried” to mean: “lifted and moved
from one place to another by a single person bearing the entire
weight of the object.”
The term does not include the concept of
24
a person using an external means to take the weight off of that
person, such as by using a dolly or a rolling suitcase.
3.
“Single Person”
Proposed construction:
AntennaSys a single person – an individual trained and
responsible for stowing and deploying antennas in
remote locations.
Windmill
Indefinite, due to term “single person,” which is a
variable lacking any description in the
specification.
AntennaSys’s proposed construction will benefit the jury
and is appropriately limited.
The patent notes that the device
was developed with aid from the United States military.
‘868 Patent at 1:13-14.
See
Doctor Shina’s unrebutted expert report
indicates that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand “single person” to refer to “an individual trained
and responsible for stowing and deploying antennas in remote
locations.”
See Doc. No. 33-6 at 4.
Whether this construction
leaves the claims invalid, as Windmill argues, is an issue that
I will address, if necessary, at a later point in the
proceedings.
The term “single person” will be construed to mean “an
individual trained and responsible for stowing and deploying
antennas in remote locations.”
25
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, with respect to United States
Patent No. 7,432,868:
A) “antenna” is accorded its plain and ordinary meaning;
B) “pivot point” is accorded its plain and ordinary meaning;
C) “elevation” and “elevation motor” are accorded their plain
and ordinary meanings;
D) “position arm” and “positioning base” are accorded their
plain and ordinary meanings;
E) “azimuth motor” means:
“a motor to position the antenna left or right along the
horizon;”
F) “an antenna with a centrally located pivot point” and “said
antenna comprises a centrally located pivot point” mean:
“a location closer to the center than the perimeter of the
antenna; not necessarily on the antenna;”
G) “configured to be stowed and deployed” means:
“made
so
that
the
components
can
be
collapsed
into
themselves for storage or carrying as a self-contained
unit and unfolded for use;”
H) “carried by a single person” means:
“lifted and moved from one place to another by a single
person bearing the entire weight of the object;”
26
I) “single person” means:
“an individual trained and responsible for stowing and
deploying antennas in remote locations.”
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Paul Barbadoro
Paul Barbadoro
United States District Judge
December 27, 2018
cc:
Kathleen M. Mahan, Esq.
Steven J. Grossman, Esq.
Arnold Rosenblatt, Esq.
David K. Pinsonneault, Esq.
Eric G. J. Kaviar, Esq.
Laura L. Carroll, Esq.
27
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?