G.I. SPORTZ INC. et al v. VALKEN INC.

Filing 85

OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 6/30/2019. (rss, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
G.I. SPORTZ, INC. and
GI SPORTZ DIRECT, LLC,
Plaintiffs,

1:17-cv-05590-NLH-KMW
MARKMAN OPINION

v.
VALKEN, INC.,
Defendant.

APPEARANCES:
RYAN W. O'DONNELL
VOLPE & KOENIG, P.C.
UNITED PLAZA
SUITE 1600
30 SOUTH 17TH STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
On behalf of Plaintiffs
ANTHONY J. DIMARINO, III
EMMETT STEPHAN COLLAZO
A.J. DIMARINO, III, PC
41 GROVE STREET
HADDONFIELD, NJ 08033
On behalf of Defendant

HILLMAN, District Judge
Plaintiffs, G.I. Sportz Inc. and G.I. Sportz Direct LLC,
own by assignment two patents for pneumatic assemblies for
recreational compressed gas operated paintball guns:

U.S.

Patent No. 6,644,295 (the “‘295 Patent”), titled “Pneumatic
Assembly for a Paintball Gun,” issued on November 11, 2003, by

the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), and
U.S. Patent No. 6,901,923 (the “‘923 Patent”), titled “Pneumatic
Assembly for a Paintball Gun,” issued by the USPTO on June 7,
2005.

(Docket No. 1-1 at 2; Docket No. 1-2 at 2.)
Plaintiffs claim that Defendant, Valken, Inc., with full
knowledge of the two Patents, is making, using, selling, and
offering to sell pneumatic assemblies for recreational
compressed gas operated guns that are covered by one or more
claims of the two Patents, including but not limited to the V12
Valken Airsoft Engine (“V12 Engine”) and compressed gas guns

2

using the V12 Engine. 1

Defendant explains that the Valken V12

device is used in the competitive team sport of airsoft, and it
disputes infringement because, among other reasons, its products
are not pneumatic: Defendant uses springs but the Patents
require air pressure forces, and Defendant’s products do not
conform to the numerous “chamber” and “housing” configurations
required in the two Patents. 2
The parties dispute whether the preamble and nine terms in
the Patents needs to be construed by the Court or given their
plain and ordinary meaning, and the parties differ on the
construction of four terms. 3
held on March 6, 2019.

A claim construction hearing was

This Opinion memorializes the Court’s

findings as to its construction of claims at issue pursuant to
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
I.

LAW OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
The ultimate question of the proper construction of a claim

in a patent is a question of law for the court to determine.

1

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, and 35 U.S.C. § 101
et seq.
2

Defendant also states that its accused devices are airsoft
products that enthusiasts use to make airsoft guns, which shoot
small, hard pellets, and not paintballs.
3

21 terms are at issue.
construction of 7 terms.
14 terms.

The parties have agreed on the
This Opinion addresses the remaining

3

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831,
837 (2015) (citing Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517
U.S. 370, 388-91 (1996)) (further explaining, “While we held in
Markman that the ultimate issue of the proper construction of a
claim should be treated as a question of law, we also recognized
that in patent construction, subsidiary factfinding is sometimes
necessary.”).

A patent claim is that “‘portion of the patent

document that defines the scope of the patentee's rights.’”

Id.

(quoting Markman, 517 U.S. at 372).
The Federal Circuit has set forth a “familiar approach to
claim construction.”

In re Papst Licensing Digital Camera

Patent Litigation, 778 F.3d 1255, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

In

construing a patent claim, which should be considered in the
mindset of a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”):
(1) a court should give words of a claim their
ordinary meaning in the context of the claim and the whole
patent document;
(2) the specification particularly, but also the
prosecution history, informs the determination of claim
meaning in context, including by resolving ambiguities;
(3) even if the meaning is plain on the face of the
claim language, the patentee can, by acting with sufficient
clarity, disclaim such a plain meaning or prescribe a
special definition; and
4

(4) the court should apply the principle that “[t]he
construction that stays true to the claim language and most
naturally aligns with the patent's description of the
invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.”
In re Papst, 778 F.3d at 1261.
II.

DISPUTED TERMS

The Court has thoroughly considered the parties’ positions
on their proposed construction of the disputed terms 4 as

4

As noted above, the parties have agreed to the construction of
seven terms at issue. They are as follows:
Claim Term
“valve”
‘923 Patent: claims 1, 2, 4, 5

Agreed to Construction
The parties agree that the claim term “valve” in claims 1,
2, 4, and 5 of the ‘923 Patent refers to a “firing valve”
and should have the same
construction as “firing valve.”

“pneumatic assembly”
‘295 Patent: claims 1, 2, 4, 8
‘923 Patent: claims 1-5
“firing valve”
‘295 Patent: claims 1, 2, 4, 8
“bolt”
‘295 Patent: claims 1, 2, 4
‘923 Patent: claims 1, 2, 4, 5

A group of parts operable by air or gas under
pressure.

“electro-pneumatic valve”
‘295 Patent: claims 1, 2, 4, 8
“valve retainer”
‘923 Patent: claim 5
“bolt cylinder”
‘923 Patent: claim 5

Electronically actuated valve which controls
compressed gas or air.
A structure that holds the valve in place.

Valve that is moveable between open and closed
positions to release compressed gas.
A structure having a gas passageway therethrough that is
configured to move in a rearward direction
to load a projectile and in a forward direction to
position the projectile for firing.

A cylindrical area housing the bolt.

5

presented in their comprehensive briefs and at oral argument at
the Markman hearing.

The Court finds the following:

1. Whether the term “paintball gun” in the preamble requires
construction
Claim Term
The term “paintball gun” in the
preamble

G.I. Sportz
Construction
Plain and ordinary
meaning

Valken Construction
an “air cannon for deploying
paintballs”

Court’s construction: “paintball gun” - “a device for
deploying a paintball”
Plaintiffs argue that because a structurally complete
invention is described in the body of the claims of the ’295 and
’923 Patents and the term “paintball gun” does not give life,
meaning, or vitality to the claims, the term “paintball gun” is
not a limitation and does not need to be construed.

Plaintiffs

further argue that the term “paintball gun” as it appears in the
claims of the ’295 and ’923 Patent merely describes the “use or
purpose” of the invention, and the term “paintball gun” is not
essential to understanding limitations or terms in the claim
body.
Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ argument concerns
whether “paintball gun” is an element that must be met for an
infringement determination – i.e., whether “paintball gun” in
the preamble is a limitation – and not an actual dispute over
the term’s construction.

Defendant argues that the term should
6

be first construed and then the issue of whether it is a
limitation assessed.
From the Court’s review of the Patents, it is evident that
meaning of the term “paintball gun” must be construed before it
can be determined, as Plaintiffs argue, that the term is not a
limitation.

Both Patents are titled “Pneumatic Assembly for a

Paintball Gun,” and both Patents refer to “paintball gun”
numerous times.

For example, the ’295 Patent provides:
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

One aspect of the present invention is to provide an
in-line pneumatic assembly capable of providing the primary
operating components of a paintball gun in a single chamber
of the paintball gun.
Another aspect of the present invention is to provide
a paintball gun that is smaller and lighter than
conventional markers.
Yet another aspect of the present invention is to
provide a paintball gun that has a smaller profile than
conventional paintball guns.
Still another aspect of this invention is to enable a
paintball gun having reduced size and weight that fires
from a closed-bolt position.
(Docket No. 1-1 at 8.)
The ’923 Patent provides:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
This invention relates generally to pneumatic
launching devices. More specifically, however, this
invention relates primarily to pneumatic paintball guns (or
"markers") for use in the sport of paintball.
In the sport of paintball, it is generally desirable
7

to have a gun that is as light and maneuverable as
possible. Players need increased mobility to move from
bunker to bunker quickly to avoid being hit. Furthermore,
in the sport of paintball, the marker is treated as an
extension of the body such that a hit to the marker counts
as a hit to the player. It is desirable, therefore, to
have a paintball gun with as small a profile as possible.
(Docket No. 1-2 at 8.)
The claims for ’295 Patent all begin with “An electropneumatic paintball gun . . . . ”

(Docket No. 1-1 at 10-11.)

The claims for the ’923 Patent all begin with “An in-line
pneumatic assembly for a paintball gun . . . .”

(Docket No. 1-2

at 10-11.)
Thus, “paintball gun” must be construed because it is
included in every claim, and it appears that the term may indeed
be essential to understanding limitations or terms in the claim
body.

If the Court or other factfinder were to find that

“paintball gun” was essential to that understanding, a
construction of that term would be necessary to construe other
parts of the Patents. 5

See O2 Micro Intern. Ltd. v. Beyond

5

Plaintiffs argue that the term paintball gun could be deleted
or substituted for the term “apparatus” or “device” without
affecting the meaning of the claim. (Docket No. 56 at 17.) The
Court questions this position, as the names of the Patents would
then be “Pneumatic assembly for an apparatus” or “Pneumatic
assembly for a device,” and concern a generic apparatus or
device, rather than the specific purpose of the Patents for the
claimed “electro-pneumatic paintball gun” and “in-line pneumatic
assembly for a paintball gun.” This observation demonstrates
why the term “paintball gun” requires a construction prior to
the substantive analysis of Plaintiffs’ infringement claims.
8

Innovation Technology Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
2008) (“A determination that a claim term ‘needs no
construction’ or has the ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ may be
inadequate when a term has more than one ‘ordinary’ meaning or
when reliance on a term's ‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve
the parties' dispute.”); ICU Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical
Systems, Inc., 558 F.3d 1368, 1375–76 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting
Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed.
Cir. 2005)) (“‘[It is] entirely proper to consider the functions
of an invention in seeking to determine the meaning of
particular claim language.’”);

Medrad, 401 F.3d at 1319

(citations omitted) (“We cannot look at the ordinary meaning of
the term

. . . in a vacuum.

Rather, we must look at the

ordinary meaning in the context of the written description and
the prosecution history.”).
Defendant’s construction that “paintball gun” is an “air
cannon for deploying paintballs” interjects a limiting
descriptor – “air cannon” – not present in the preamble or the
claims of either Patent.

The issue of Plaintiffs focusing on a

limitation is the very argument Defendant advances as why the
term must be construed over Plaintiffs’ objections.

The Court

agrees that the claim must be construed, but the Court does not
accept Defendant’s construction.

The Court finds that the term

9

“paintball gun” simply means “a device for deploying a
paintball.” 6
2.

“Housing,” “Substantially Contiguous Assembly
Housing,” “Gas Storage Area Housing”
Claim Term

“housing”

G.I. Sportz
Construction
Plain and ordinary
meaning

’295 Pat.: claims 1, 2, 4, 8
Claim Term
“substantially contiguous
assembly housing”

G.I. Sportz
Construction
Plain and ordinary
meaning

’295 Pat.: claim 8
’923 Pat.: claim 5
Claim Term
“gas storage area
housing”

G.I. Sportz
Construction
Plain and ordinary
meaning

Valken Construction
“body containing
pneumatic assembly
elements”
Valken Construction
“body that includes
pneumatic assembly
components fitted end to
end”

Valken Construction
“container separate from
housing that holds
compressed gas”

’923 Pat.: claim 5
Court’s construction:
“housing” - “a body containing [certain components]”
“substantially contiguous assembly housing” – “a body
containing components that are connected together in-line”
“gas storage area housing” - “a body containing the gas
storage area”

6

The Patents also refer to “paintball gun” as a “marker.”
Court finds these terms to be synonymous.
10

The

Plaintiffs argue that “housing” is a commonplace word that
does not need a special construction, and the plain and ordinary
meaning of this term should be adopted by the Court.

Plaintiffs

argue that Defendant’s proposal includes arbitrary word
replacements, adds unnecessary limitations, is inconsistent with
its proposed construction of other claim terms that include the
word “housing,” and it adds confusion.

Plaintiffs also argue

that because the claims clearly recite that the “pneumatic
assembly components” are within the “chamber,” Defendant’s
construction of “housing” is unnecessary.
Defendant argues that its construction should be accepted
because, one, Plaintiffs do not provide any construction, and
two, “housing” has different meanings within the ’295 Patent.
The Court finds that all three terms must be construed.
First, the Court concludes a construction of the term “housing”
is required because of the several variations of the term in the
’295 Patent.

Claims 1 through 7 all provide in relevant part:

1. An electro-pneumatic paintball gun comprising:
a housing;
a chamber located within said housing;
a pneumatic assembly disposed within said chamber, said
pneumatic assembly comprising a firing valve, a compressed
gas storage area, and a bolt . . . .
(Docket No. 1-1 at 10-11.)
Claim 8 is different and provides in relevant part:
8. An electro-pneumatic paintball gun comprising:
11

a substantially longitudinally arranged chamber disposed
through a housing of said paintball gun from a rearward end
to a breech end;
an in-line pneumatic assembly located within said chamber,
said in-line pneumatic assembly comprising a firing valve,
a compressed gas storage chamber, and a bolt assembly
arranged together in a substantially contiguous assembly
housing . . . .
(Id. at 11.)
The ’923 Patent also contains the term “housing” in two
configurations:
5. An in-line pneumatic assembly according to claim 1,
wherein the gas storage area is arranged in a gas storage
area housing, wherein the valve is slidably retained in a
valve retainer, wherein the bolt is slidably mounted in a
bolt cylinder, and wherein the valve retainer, the gas
storage area housing, and the bolt cylinder are connected
together end to end to form a substantially contiguous
assembly housing.
(Docket No. 1-2 at 10.)
In order to differentiate between “housing,” “substantially
contiguous assembly housing,” and “gas storage area housing,”
those terms must be defined first as to the broad term “housing”
and then with more specificity as to the other two types of
housing.

The Patents provide “body” as a synonym to “housing.”

(Docket No. 1-1 at 8 (“According to another embodiment, a
paintball gun preferably includes a body having a breech.”); 1-2
at 9 (“a paintball gun constructed according to another aspect
of this invention includes a housing (or body)”.)

The Court

therefore finds that “housing” means “body containing [certain
12

components],” which components are then further defined by the
claim.
The definition of “housing” further helps to define the
other two terms in the context of the particular claim.

Thus, a

“gas storage area housing” is “a body containing the gas storage
area.”

A “substantially contiguous assembly housing” is a “body

containing components that are connected together in-line.”
3. “Disposed,” “Configured to be disposed in a closed
position,” “Chamber,” “ A single longitudinally disposed
chamber”
Claim Term
“disposed”

G.I. Sportz Construction
Plain and ordinary meaning

’295 Pat.: claims 1, 2, 4, 8

If a construction other than
“plain and ordinary meaning”
is required, then Plaintiffs
propose the following
construction: “arranged”

Claim Term
“chamber”

G.I. Sportz
Construction
“a longitudinally arranged area
within a housing”

’295 Pat.: claims 1, 2, 4, 8

Valken Construction
“located”

Valken Construction
“a container of air or
pneumatic assembly
components”

’923 Pat.: claim 3
Claim Term
“configured to be
disposed in a closed
position”

G.I. Sportz Construction
Plain and ordinary meaning

’295 Pat.: claim 1

13

Valken Construction
“designed to be located,
biased, or urged to a
forward position”

Claim Term
“a single longitudinally
disposed chamber”

G.I. Sportz
Construction
“a longitudinally arranged area
within a housing”

Valken Construction
“one container with
component parts located
in series, end to end”

’923 Pat.: 3

Court’s construction:
“Disposed” -

“arranged”

“Chamber” – “compartment”
“Configured to be disposed in a closed position” –
“arranged in a closed position”
“A single longitudinally disposed chamber” – “one
longitudinally arranged container”
The Court will construe these four terms together in
sequence.

For “disposed,” Plaintiffs point out that the term

“disposed” appears in the ‘295 Patent claims in three ways: (1)
“disposed in” (claim 1); (2) “disposed within” (claims 1, 2, 4);
“disposed through” (claim 8), and Plaintiffs argue that in each
instance, the term “disposed” is used in accordance with its
plain and ordinary meaning.

Plaintiffs argue that there is no

reason to depart from this language, but if the Court was
compelled to define this claim term, it should adopt the term
“arranged” as this is consistent with the dictionary definition
of “disposed.”

Defendant recognizes the three different uses of

“disposed,” but argues that it should be defined as “located.”
For “chamber,” Plaintiffs point out that Claims 1, 2, and 4

14

of the ‘295 Patent each state “a chamber located within said
housing.”

Claim 8 of the ‘295 Patent states “a substantially

longitudinally arranged chamber disposed through a housing.”
Claim 3 of the ‘923 Patent states “a single longitudinally
disposed chamber.”

The specifications of each patent

recites “a housing (or body) 9 having a chamber 10 preferably
formed longitudinally there through.”

Thus, Plaintiffs argue,

it follows that the chamber is “a longitudinally arranged area
within a housing.”

Although claim 8 of the ‘295 patent

specifically states that the chamber is longitudinally arranged
while claims 1, 2, and 4 of the ‘295 Patent do not recite this
language, Plaintiffs argue it is appropriate to define “chamber”
as longitudinally arranged because this is the only embodiment
disclosed in the specification.
Defendant argues Plaintiffs’ construction is flawed not
only because it omits the two purposes of the “chambers” in the
claims, but it also incorrectly requires a “longitudinal”
character.

For Claim 8, which specifically requires a

“longitudinally disposed chamber,” a “longitudinally disposed
longitudinally arranged area” is a repetitive and confusing
construction not fit for a jury.

Additionally, Defendant argues

that “area” implies two-dimensions, while “container” implies
three dimensions and volume, which is apt here.

Defendant

proposes “a container of air or pneumatic assembly components”
15

because in the claims, the term “chamber” refers to either (1)
the place that the pneumatic assembly is located, or (2) the
place that air is held.
The claim terms “configured to be disposed in a closed
position” and “a single longitudinally disposed chamber” follow
from the construction of the terms “disposed” and “chamber.”
Defendant argues that because “disposed” and “closed
position” refer to the location of the bolt in Claim 1, because
“located” accurately reveals the meaning of the uncommon term
“disposed” in this context and in light of the dictionary
definition of “dispose” as related to objects, and because
Plaintiff offers no construction, the term “configured to be
disposed in a closed position” should be construed to mean
“designed to be located, biased, or urged to a forward
position.”

Plaintiffs dispute that the term needs construction,

and Defendant’s proposed construction should be rejected because
it would needlessly add confusion and it arbitrarily substitutes
words for those chosen by the patentee.
For “a single longitudinally disposed chamber,” Plaintiffs
adopt the same construction as the one they propose for
“chamber” - “a longitudinally arranged area within a housing.”
Defendant also relies upon its construction of “chamber.”
Defendant argues that because the single longitudinally disposed
chamber is clearly not one of air, but of “component parts,” and
16

the component parts are “in-line,” they are therefore arranged
in a series inside that container.

Defendant argues that it is

more accurate to state that the component parts are “located”
(“disposed”) in a series (“in-line”), running lengthwise (“end
to end”).
As always, the Court looks to the Patents for the context
of the disputed term.

Claims 1 through 7 of the ’295 Patent

provide in relevant part:
1. An electro-pneumatic paintball gun comprising:
a housing;
a chamber located within said housing;
a pneumatic assembly disposed within said chamber, said
pneumatic assembly comprising a firing valve, a compressed
gas storage area, and a bolt, wherein the bolt is
configured to be disposed in a closed position before a
launching sequence is initiated; and
an electro-pneumatic valve configured to actuate the firing
valve.
(Docket No. 1-1 at 10-11.)
Claim 8 is different and provides in relevant part:
8. An electro-pneumatic paintball gun comprising:
a substantially longitudinally arranged chamber disposed
through a housing of said paintball gun from a rearward end
to a breech end;
an in-line pneumatic assembly located within said chamber,
said in-line pneumatic assembly comprising a firing valve,
a compressed gas storage chamber, and a bolt assembly
arranged together in a substantially contiguous assembly
housing . . . .
(Id. at 11.)
Claim 3 of the ‘923 Patent states, “An in-line pneumatic

17

assembly according to claim 1, wherein the in-line pneumatic
assembly is configured to be arranged in a single longitudinally
disposed chamber of a paintball gun.”

The specifications of

each patent recite “a housing (or body) 9 having a chamber 10
preferably formed longitudinally there through.”
The Court finds that “disposed” means “arranged” because
Plaintiffs adopt this proposed construction of “disposed” in the
construction of the other terms using that word, and because in
the context of the Patents, “arranged” is a more accurate
construction than “located.”
The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ construction of “chamber” and
their construction of “a single longitudinally disposed chamber”
because those two terms cannot mean the same thing, and using a
term to define itself is not helpful to the POSA.

The Court

also rejects Defendant’s proposed construction as too narrow.
Considering the Court’s construction of “housing” to mean
“a body containing [certain components],” and that the chamber
is within the housing, the Court finds “chamber” to mean
“compartment.”
Accordingly, the Court finds “configured to be disposed in
a closed position” to mean “arranged in a closed position,” and
the Court finds “a single longitudinally disposed chamber” to
mean “one longitudinally arranged compartment.”

18

4. “First Surface Area,” “Second Surface Area”
Claim Term
“first surface area”
’295 Pat.: 2, 4, 8

G.I. Sportz
Construction
“a surface area of the [firing]
valve that is smaller than a
second surface area of the
[firing] valve”

‘923 Pat: 1

Claim Term
“second surface area”
’295 Pat.: 2, 4, 8

G.I. Sportz
Construction
“a surface area of the [firing]
valve that is larger than the
first surface area of the
[firing] valve”

’923 Pat.: 1

Valken Construction
“smaller cross-sectional area
of firing valve that receives
constant supply of
compressed gas, where the
compressed gas holds the
firing valve in closed
position”

Valken Construction
“larger cross-sectional area
of firing valve that receives
selective supply of gas to
actuate firing
valve due to trigger”

Court’s construction: plain and ordinary meaning
Plaintiffs argue that their construction of the terms are
supported by the claims and the specifications.

Plaintiffs

contend that Defendant’s construction is ambiguous and
improperly adds superfluous language.
Defendant argues that because there is no difference in the
“first surface area” term between the two Patents, and because
both are clearly taught to have smaller cross-sectional areas
for specific application of opposing pneumatic forces, one of
ordinary skill would agree that a factfinder would properly
understand the “first surface area” as being a “smaller crosssectional area of firing valve that receives constant supply of
19

compressed gas, where the compressed gas holds the firing valve
in closed position.”

Defendant further argues that one of

ordinary skill would agree that a factfinder would properly
understand the term “second surface area” in the relevant claims
to not only have a larger cross-sectional area than the opposing
first surface area, but to be what actuates the firing of the
projectile.

Accordingly, “second surface area” should be

construed as “larger cross-sectional area of firing valve that
receives selective supply of gas to actuate firing valve due to
trigger.”
The terms “first surface area” and “second surface area”
are included in Claims 2, 4 and 8 in the ’295 Patent and in
Claim 1 in the ’923 Patent.
Claim 2 provides in relevant part:
2. An electro-pneumatic paintball gun comprising: . . .
an electro-pneumatic valve configured to actuate the firing
valve, wherein the firing valve is configured to be
actuated by selectively supplying compressed gas to a
second surface area, said second surface area being larger
than an opposing first surface area, wherein the first
surface area receives a constant supply of compressed gas.
(Docket No. 1-1 at 10.)
Claim 4 provides in relevant part:
4.

An electro-pneumatic paintball gun comprising: . . .

an electro-pneumatic valve configured to actuate the firing
valve, wherein the firing valve is configured having a
second surface area larger than a first surface area,
wherein the first surface area is configured to
20

continuously receive a supply of compressed gas while the
gun is pressurized, and wherein said second surface area is
configured to selectively receive a supply of com­ pressed
gas from the electro-pneumatic valve to operate the firing
valve by overcoming a force created by the compressed gas
on the first surface area.
(Id. at 10.)
Claim 8 provides in relevant part:
8.

An electro-pneumatic paintball gun comprising: . . .

an electro-pneumatic valve configured to actuate the firing
valve, wherein said firing valve comprises a first sur­
face area and a second surface area, wherein said first
surface area is smaller than the second surface area, and
wherein said electro-pneumatic valve is configured to
selectively supply compressed gas to the second surface
area to actuate the firing valve.
(Id. at 11.)
Claim 1 of the ’923 Patent provides:
1. An in-line pneumatic assembly for a paintball gun,
comprising:
a gas storage area configured to receive compressed gas
from a regulated gas supply;
a valve comprising a first surface area and a second
surface area, wherein the first surface area is smaller
than the second surface area, wherein the first surface
area is configured to receive a substantially constant
supply of compressed gas, and wherein the second
surface area is configured to selectively receive
compressed gas of the same pressure to actuate the valve;
and
a bolt configured to slide between a forward and a
rearward position and to transmit compressed gas from
the compressed gas storage area when the valve is
actuated.
(Docket No. 1-2 at 10.)

21

The “Summary of the Invention” in both Patents provides in
relevant part:
According to one aspect of this invention, an in-line
pneumatic assembly includes a gas storage area, a valve,
and a bolt. The gas storage area receives compressed gas
from a regulated gas supply through a port in the valve.
The valve includes two surfaces of different crosssectional areas. A first surface, having a smaller crosssectional area, receives a substantially constant supply of
compressed gas. A second surface, having a larger crosssectional area, selectively receives compressed gas to
actuate the valve. The bolt is configured to slide back
and forth between a forward and a rearward position. The
bolt is preferably arranged in a forward (closed) position
before the valve is actuated to fire the gun. When the
valve is actuated, compressed gas from the compressed gas
storage area is directed through the bolt and a paintball
is launched from the gun.
(Docket No. 1-1 at 8; see also Docket No. 1-2 at 8.)
The two Patents’ specifications further explain:
A valve actuator 18 is located within the valve retainer
14. The valve actuator 18 includes a forward surface 18a
having a second surface area that is larger than the first
surface area of the valve 16. The second surface area is
selectively subjected to compressed gas from a control
valve through a port in the valve retainer 14 to actuate
the valve 16. The compressed gas supplied to the second
surface area prefer­ably has the same pressure as the gas
supplied to the first surface area. Because of the
difference in cross-sectional areas, however, the force
exerted on the second surface area is greater than the
force exerted on the first surface area, thereby actuating
the valve 16. When actuated, the valve 16 is forced
rearward, causing the plug 16c to become unseated from the
releasing port 21a of the compressed gas storage area 20.
The gas stored in the compressed gas storage area 20 is
thereby released into and through the bolt 24.
(Docket No. 1-1 at 9; Docket No. 1-2 at 9.)
A cross-sectional drawing of the invention shows the

22

following, with the red representing the first surface area at
16a, 16b, and blue representing the second surface area at 18a.

The Court finds based on the claims, summary of the
invention, specifications, and drawings that Defendant’s
construction of “first surface area” and “second surface area”

23

includes descriptions of the purpose of the “first surface area”
and “second surface area” that are either redundant of the
claims or may be in conflict with the claims.
The Court finds that the meaning of “first surface area”
and “second surface area” are plainly explained by the claims,
which describe the location, size, and purpose of those valve
surface areas.

Therefore, the Court finds that those terms

shall be construed by their plain and ordinary meaning.

5. “Overcoming a force created by the compressed gas on
the first surface area”
Claim Term
“overcoming a force
created by the compressed
gas on the first surface
area”

G.I. Sportz
Construction
Plain and ordinary
meaning

Valken Construction
“application of air pressure
that exceeds constant air
pressure forces that place a
firing valve in a closed
position”

’295 Pat.: claim 4
Court’s construction:
Claim 4 provides in relevant part:
4. An electro-pneumatic paintball gun comprising:
a housing;
a chamber located within said housing;
a pneumatic assembly disposed within said chamber, said
pneumatic assembly comprising a firing valve, a com­
pressed gas storage area, and a bolt; and
an electro-pneumatic valve configured to actuate the firing
valve, wherein the firing valve is configured having a
second surface area larger than a first surface area,
24

wherein the first surface area is configured to
continuously receive a supply of compressed gas while the
gun is pressurized, and wherein said second surface area is
configured to selectively receive a supply of compressed
gas from the electro-pneumatic valve to operate the firing
valve by overcoming a force created by the compressed gas
on the first surface area.
(Docket No. 1-1 at 10.)
Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s construction of this term
is contrary to the language of Claim 4, which recites nothing
about “constant air pressure forces that place a firing valve in
a closed position.”

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s proposed

construction of this term is an attempt to rewrite the claim in
a manner to argue that it does not infringe, which is improper.
Defendant conclusorily states “overcoming a force created by the
compressed gas on the first surface area” means an “application
of air pressure that exceeds constant air pressure forces that
place a firing valve in a closed position” without any further
explanation, and points out that Plaintiffs have not provided
any alternative construction for Defendant to consider.
The Court finds that just like the terms “first surface
area” and “second surface area,” when the term “overcoming a
force created by the compressed gas on the first surface area”
is read in the context of the claim, the plain and ordinary
meaning of that phrase speaks for itself.

Consequently, the

Court finds that the plain and ordinary meaning shall apply to
“overcoming a force created by the compressed gas on the first
25

surface area.”
6. “Configured to continuously receive,” “Configured to
continuously be exposed to compressed gas,” “Configured to
selectively receive”
Claim Term
“configured to
continuously receive”

G.I. Sportz
Construction
Plain and ordinary
meaning

Valken Construction
“designed for air to force a
surface area”

’295 Pat.: claim 4
Claim Term
“configured to continuously
be exposed to compressed
gas”

G.I. Sportz
Construction
Plain and ordinary
meaning

’295 Pat.: claim 9

Claim Term
“configured to selectively
receive”

G.I. Sportz
Construction
Plain and ordinary
meaning

Valken Construction
“designed to receive constant
air pressure that holds firing
valve in closed position until
acted on by an opposing force
of compressed gas”

Valken Construction
“designed to receive
selective application of air
on surface area”

’295 Pat.: claim 4
’923 Pat.: claim 1
Court’s construction: plain and ordinary meaning
Claim 4 and Claim 9 provide in relevant part:
4. An electro-pneumatic paintball gun comprising:
a housing;
a chamber located within said housing;
a pneumatic assembly disposed within said chamber, said
pneumatic assembly comprising a firing valve, a com­
26

pressed gas storage area, and a bolt; and
an electro-pneumatic valve configured to actuate the firing
valve, wherein the firing valve is configured having a
second surface area larger than a first surface area,
wherein the first surface area is configured to
continuously receive a supply of compressed gas while the
gun is pressurized, and wherein said second surface area is
configured to selectively receive a supply of compressed
gas from the electro-pneumatic valve to operate the firing
valve by overcoming a force created by the compressed gas
on the first surface area.
(Docket No. 1-1 at 10.)
9. An electro-pneumatic paintball gun according to claim 8,
wherein said first surface area is configured to
continuously be exposed to compressed gas while the
paintball gun is pressurized.
(Id. at 11.)
Claim 1 of the ’923 Patent provides in relevant part:
1. An in-line pneumatic assembly for a paintball gun,
comprising:
a gas storage area configured to receive compressed gas
from a regulated gas supply . . . .
(Docket No. 1-2 at 10.)
Plaintiffs advocate for the plain and ordinary meaning of
these terms, while Defendant’s proposed construction of these
terms endeavors to add the purpose for the mechanism into the
term.

The Court finds that these terms do not require

additional interpretation beyond their plain and ordinary
meaning.

27

III.

CONCLUSION

As indicated by the Court’s June 28, 2019 Order (Docket No.
84), the parties are permitted to proceed as appropriate in
light of the Court’s foregoing claim construction.

Date: June 30, 2019
At Camden, New Jersey

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

28