AntennaSys, Inc. v. AQYR Technologies, Inc.

Filing 55

ORDER denying 50 Motion for Reconsideration re: 48 Memorandum & Opinion. 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. 2019 DNH 022

AQYR Technologies, Inc. and
Windmill International, Inc.
ORDER
AntennaSys, Inc. moves this Court to partially reconsider its
December 27, 2018, Markman order with respect to the claim language
“configured to be stowed and deployed.”

I deny that motion.

First, AntennaSys argues that I misapplied the doctrines of
disavowal and disclaimer by applying an incorrect legal standard.
See Doc. No. 50-1 at 3.
disputed term.

But I did not apply either doctrine to the

Rather, I construed an otherwise ambiguous claim

term and relied on the line of Federal Circuit cases that
distinguishes “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 contain.”

See Doc. No. 48

(“Order”) at 17-18 (citing Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358
F.3d 898, 904 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

As the Federal Circuit recently

noted in Cave Consulting Grp., LLC v. OptumInsight, Inc., 725 F.
App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2018), cert. denied, No. 18-590, 2019 WL 113173
(U.S. Jan. 7, 2019), “‘[o]ur case law does not require explicit
redefinition or disavowal’ when the description itself is
affirmatively limiting.”

Id. at 995 (quoting Trs. of Columbia Univ.

in City of N.Y. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir.

2016)) (emphasis in the original).

The attempt to distinguish

Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296
(Fed. Cir. 2011) is similarly unconvincing because it merely
restates arguments I have already chosen to reject and mistakenly
imports an inapplicable disclaimer gloss on the Federal Circuit’s
decision.
Second, AntennaSys submits that the specification, properly
read, does not limit the claim language.
method claim 6 and dependent claim 8.

It rests an argument on

See Doc. No. 501 at 8-9.

Neither claim, however, relates to “stowing” or “deploying.”

Nor

does the language at 8:51-56 and 9:32-34 change my analysis, since
both sections contemplate the apparatus “collaps[ing]” into itself
without disconnecting the components.
37.

See ‘868 Patent at 9:34, 35-

I remain unconvinced that the patent specification contemplates

stowing the device in a disassembled state.
AntennaSys’s motion for partial reconsideration of the Court’s
December 27, 2018, order (Doc. No. 50) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Paul Barbadoro
Paul Barbadoro
United States District Judge
February 5, 2019
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.

2