ULTRA-MEK, INC. v. UNITED FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC. et al

Filing 234

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 6/2/2022; this court construes the "opposed first and second ends" claim limitation as "the lengthwise extremities of the [power act uating unit/actuating unit/linear actuating unit], wherein length is defined by the axis in which the [power actuating unit/actuating unit/linear actuating unit] moves forwardly and rearwardly." Within five days of the issuance of this Order, th e parties shall meet and confer to discuss whether in light of this adopted construction there is a need for additional expert reports, expert disclosures, and summary judgment briefing. If so, the parties shall set deadlines to complete this work, including any responsive briefing, by July 11, 2022. (Sheets, Jamie)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ULTRA-MEK, INC.,
Plaintiff and
Counter Defendant,
v.
UNITED FURNITURE INDUSTRIES,
INC., OISEYS INTERNATIONAL,
INC., MAN WAH HOLDINGS LTD.,
JIANGSU YULONG SMART
TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
REMACRO MACHINERY
TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
TAIZHOU CHENGUANG VEHICLE CO.,
LTD., and MAN WAH (USA), INC.,
Defendants and
Counter Claimants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:18CV281

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
OSTEEN, JR., District Judge
Presently before this court is the disputed construction of
the patent claim limitation “opposed first and second ends.” This
court will begin by summarizing the case’s background and then
proceed to analyze the disputed claim limitation. This court
concludes that the limitation should be construed as “the
lengthwise extremities of the [power actuating unit/actuating
unit/linear actuating unit], wherein length is defined by the
axis in which the [power actuating unit/actuating unit/linear
actuating unit] moves forwardly and rearwardly.”

Case 1:18-cv-00281-WO-JEP Document 234 Filed 06/02/22 Page 1 of 15

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Ultra-Mek, Inc. is the owner of two patents that

each describe a reclining chair. (First Am. Compl. (Doc. 31)
¶¶ 22–25.) The patents are U.S. Patent Number 8,016,348 (the
“‘348 patent”) and U.S. Patent Number 8,297,693 (the “‘693
patent”). (Ex. A (“‘348 patent”) (Doc. 31-1); Ex. B (“‘693
patent”) (Doc. 31-2).)
Plaintiff sued Defendants United Furniture Industries, Inc.,
Oiseys International, Inc., Man Wah Holdings Ltd., Jiangsu Yulong
Smart Technology Co., Ltd.,1 Remacro Machinery Technology Co.,
Ltd., Taizhou Chenguang Vehicle Co., Ltd., and Man Wash (USA),
Inc. (together, “Defendants”), alleging they had infringed these
patents. (First Am. Compl. (Doc. 31) ¶¶ 73–88.) The case
proceeded to claim construction, and this court construed
disputed claim terms. (Doc. 124.) This court did not construe the
phrase “opposed first and second ends,” as used in claims 7 and
13 of the ‘348 patent and claim 1 of the ‘693 patent. (See id.)
The case progressed to the summary judgment stage, and this
court denied the parties’ summary judgment motions. (Doc. 174 at

1

Ultra-Mek’s First Amended Complaint named “New Man Wah
Vehicle Co.” as a defendant, but that entity was later
substituted for Jiangsu Yulong Smart Technology Co., Ltd.
(Doc. 81.)
- 2 -

Case 1:18-cv-00281-WO-JEP Document 234 Filed 06/02/22 Page 2 of 15

40.)2 However, the summary judgment opinion included language
that was dismissive of Plaintiff’s literal infringement theory
because the allegedly infringing mechanism “does not have literal
opposed ends in the format envisioned by the patent.” ( Id. at
25.) Based on this language, Defendants filed a motion in limine
to exclude any trial “testimony asserting that claims 7, 13, and
14 of the ’348 patent and claims 1, 2, and 4-7 of the ’693 patent
are literally infringed.” (Doc. 180 at 3.)
This court denied that motion as unripe, (Doc. 214 at 15),
and the parties agreed to file supplemental claim construction
briefs regarding the phrase “opposed first and second ends,”
(Doc. 211 at 32). Those briefs were filed, (Pl.’s Suppl. Claim
Construction Br. (“Pl.’s Br.”) (Doc. 215); Defs.’ Claim
Construction Br. Regarding “Opposed First and Second Ends”
(“Defs.’ Br.”) (Doc. 219)), as were briefs responding to the
opposing party’s proposed construction, (Docs. 223, 224). After
reviewing the briefing, this court shared with the parties the
construction it was considering and gave the parties an
opportunity to comment. (Doc. 230.) Both parties availed
themselves of that opportunity. (Docs. 231, 232.)

2

All citations in this Memorandum Opinion and Order to
documents filed with the court refer to the page numbers located
at the bottom right-hand corner of the documents as they appear
on CM/ECF.
- 3 -

Case 1:18-cv-00281-WO-JEP Document 234 Filed 06/02/22 Page 3 of 15

II.

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
The Federal Circuit has emphasized “that a district court

may (and sometimes must) . . . supplement its claim
constructions . . . to the extent necessary to ensure that final
constructions serve their purpose of genuinely clarifying the
scope of claims for the finder of fact.” In re Papst Licensing
Digit. Camera Pat. Litig., 778 F.3d 1255, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Such supplemental construction of the phrase “opposed first and
second ends,” as used in claims 7 and 13 of the ‘348 patent and
claim 1 of the ‘693 patent is appropriate here. The parties agree
that the phrase should be construed consistently across the three
claims despite minor differences in claim language, (compare
Pl.’s Br. (Doc. 215) at 1 n.1, with Defs.’ Br. (Doc. 219) at 2),
reflected in the bracketed language below:
wherein the [power actuating unit/actuating unit/linear
actuating unit] includes opposed first and second ends,
and wherein the first end of the [power actuating
unit/actuating unit/linear actuating unit] moves
forwardly as the seating unit moves from the upright
position to the TV position, and wherein the second end
of the [power actuating unit/actuating unit/linear
actuating unit]3 moves rearwardly when the seating unit
moves from the TV position to the fully reclined
position.

3

For ease of reference, this court will hereinafter use the
term “actuating unit” as shorthand to collectively refer to the
power actuating unit, actuating unit, and linear actuating unit.
- 4 -

Case 1:18-cv-00281-WO-JEP Document 234 Filed 06/02/22 Page 4 of 15

(‘348 patent (Doc. 31-1) at 10:9–15, 11:14–12:3 (emphasis added);
‘693 patent (Doc. 31-2) at 9:45–51 (emphasis added)).
The following chart sets forth each party’s preferred
construction of “opposed first and second ends”:
Plaintiff’s Construction

Defendants’ Construction

opposed first and second points
on the [power actuating
unit/actuating unit/linear
actuating unit] that are
connected to the
[reclining/actuating] mechanism

Plain and ordinary meaning;
wherein an “end” is one of
the lengthwise extremities of
the [power actuating
unit/actuating unit/linear
actuating unit]

(Pl.’s Br. (Doc. 215) at 1; Defs.’ Br. (Doc. 219) at 2.)
The Federal Circuit instructs courts construing patent
claims to give claim language its “ordinary and customary
meaning” as understood by “a person of ordinary skill in the art
in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Although “[i]n
some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood
by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to
lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little
more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of
commonly understood words,” id. at 1314, that is not the case
here. As an example of such commonly understood language, the
Federal Circuit cites a case where the word “or” did “not require
elaborate interpretation” because it was not a “technical term[]
of art” and thus was construed in accordance with its plain and
- 5 -

Case 1:18-cv-00281-WO-JEP Document 234 Filed 06/02/22 Page 5 of 15

ordinary meaning. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir.
2001). In contrast, the phrase “first and second opposed ends” is
less widely utilized language with a much less readily apparent
common understanding and consequently may have a particular
meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Phillips,
415 F.3d at 1314. Therefore, this court rejects the opening
language from Defendants’ proposed construction that calls for
the phrase to be construed pursuant to its “[p]lain and ordinary
meaning.” (Defs.’ Br. (Doc. 219) at 2.) This court will instead
consult evidentiary “sources available to the public that show
what a person of skill in the art would have understood [the]
disputed claim language to mean.” Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v.
Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed.
Cir. 2004).
The court begins with the intrinsic evidence because “[t]he
intrinsic record in a patent case is the primary tool to supply
the context for interpretation of disputed claim terms.” VFormation, Inc. v. Benetton Grp. SpA, 401 F.3d 1307, 1310 (Fed.
Cir. 2005). The first category of intrinsic evidence that will be
addressed is “the claims themselves [which] provide substantial
guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Phillips,
415 F.3d at 1314.

- 6 -

Case 1:18-cv-00281-WO-JEP Document 234 Filed 06/02/22 Page 6 of 15

Plaintiff maintains that the claims containing the d isputed
language are referring to “the functional ends of the actuator—
not its physical extremities—which translate the linear force
created by the actuator into the movement of the seating unit.”
(Pl.’s Br. (Doc. 215) at 3.) Plaintiff asserts its construction
explains how the opposed first and second ends provide this
functionality and will aid the jury “by explaining how those
functional ends are configured.” (Id.) Defendants disagree and
argue that “within the claims, ‘opposed’ modifies ‘ends,’ which
makes sense when an end is understood as a lengthwise extremity,
but conversely makes little sense if ends are merely points
anywhere on the actuating unit.” (Defs.’ Br. (Doc. 219) at 4.)
This court is unpersuaded by both parties’ arguments. Courts
are to consider “the words of the claims themselves” when
examining claim language. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Here, the claim limitation
in which the phrase “opposed first and second ends” appears only
explains what direction the ends move (forwardly and rearwardly)
and when that movement occurs (in two stages as the seating unit
reclines). (‘348 patent (Doc. 31-1) at 10:9–15, 11:14–12:3; ‘693
patent (Doc. 31-2) at 9:45–51.)
Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, nothing in the express
language of the claims—or even their readily apparent purpose—
- 7 -

Case 1:18-cv-00281-WO-JEP Document 234 Filed 06/02/22 Page 7 of 15

conclusively dictates that the opposed first and second ends are
the actuating unit’s functional ends. Defendants’ argument is
equally unavailing because the mere use of the word “opposed”
does not require that the ends be understood as “lengthwise
extremities.” Even if the ends were understood as “points”
elsewhere on the actuating unit (as Plaintiff wishes), those ends
could still conceivably and fairly be described as “opposed.” No
evidence has been presented that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would readily understand the word “opposed” to inherently
require that the ends be any certain distance or stand in any
particular positional relationship with one another.
Because the claims themselves do not resolve the ambiguity
of the disputed term, this court will examine the patents’
specification as “[c]laims must be read in view of the
specification, of which they are a part.” Markman v. Westview
Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc),
aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Patents’ specifications “contain[] a
written description of the invention that . . . enable[s] one of
ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention.” Id. at
978. “[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim
construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the
single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. ’” Phillips,
415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582).
- 8 -

Case 1:18-cv-00281-WO-JEP Document 234 Filed 06/02/22 Page 8 of 15

Nevertheless, “particular embodiments appearing in a
specification will not be read into the claims when the claim
language is broader than such embodiments.” Electro Med. Sys.,
S.A. v. Cooper Life Scis., Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1994).
While both parties insist the patents shared
specification’s4 use of the word “end” supports their proposed
construction, Defendants have the better argument. Plaintiff
cites language from the specification in which the phrases “rear
end” and “front end” are used; Plaintiff insists that this “shows
that the patentee knew how to restrict an ‘end’ to the front or
back, i.e. to a ‘lengthwise extremity’—and deliberately chose not
to do so” in the claim limitations at issue. (Pl.’s Br.
(Doc. 215) at 5.) But Defendants point to half a dozen instances
where “the specification uses end to refer to a lengthwise
extremity of a component,” one of which does so without using the
modifiers “front” and “rear,” or any other adjective, before the
word “end.” (Defs.’ Br. (Doc. 219) at 4–5 (describing, inter
alia, a “link 31, which is attached at either end . . . at pivots
22, 27,” where figure 4 shows those pivots at the lengthwise

4

The two patents’ specifications appear identical. (Compare
‘348 patent (Doc. 31-1) at 4–17, with ‘693 patent (Doc. 31-2) at
4–17.)
- 9 -

Case 1:18-cv-00281-WO-JEP Document 234 Filed 06/02/22 Page 9 of 15

extremities of link 31 (internal quotation marks omitted)
(emphasis added)).)
The specification offers further support for Defendants’
proposed construction. Defendants explain that the specification
shows an “‘end’ of the linear actuator, which is the end of the
‘rod 118,’ attaches to the ‘projecting bracket 46’ at ‘pivot
122,’ which is at one lengthwise extremity of the actuating unit,
whereas the other ‘end’ is at pivot 120 at the other lengthwise
extremity of the actuating unit.” (Id. at 3 (quoting ’348 patent
at 6:50-58).) This is visible in figures from the patents that
Defendants have cropped and annotated:

(Id. (excerpting and annotating figs.2A, 5).) Because “claims are
not to be interpreted by adding limitations appearing only in the
specification,” Electro Med. Sys., 34 F.3d at 1054, this
embodiment does not by itself suffice to conclude that the
“opposed first and second ends” claim limitation should be
construed pursuant to Defendants’ proposed “lengthwise extremity”
construction. Nonetheless, it lends support to Defendants’
construction because the patents’ specification serves as the

- 10 -

Case 1:18-cv-00281-WO-JEP Document 234 Filed 06/02/22 Page 10 of 15

“best guide to the meaning of” the disputed claim language.
Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582.
That the specification supports the “lengthwise extremity”
construction differentiates this case from Presidio Components,
Inc. v. AVX Corporation, 825 F. App’x 909 (Fed. Cir. 2020), an
unpublished Federal Circuit decision on which Plaintiff relies,
(Pl.’s Br. (Doc. 215) at 2, 4). Presidio found no error in a
construction of “end” that was broader than a “lengthwise
extremity” because, inter alia, there was “nothing in the
specification to” support the “lengthwise extremity”
construction. See 825 F. App’x at 917. In contrast, the patents’
specification here supports a narrower construction because of
its use of the word “end” and an embodiment it describes. Thus,
this case is more similar to Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v. XBody Equipment, a published Federal Circuit decision affirming
the construction of “proximate end” as “the extreme or last part
lengthwise” because, inter alia, that construction was supported
by the patent’s specification. 808 F.3d 1313, 1317–18 (Fed. Cir.
2015).
Plaintiff raises one more intrinsic evidence source: prior
art cited in the patents. (Pl.’s Br. (Doc. 215) at 6.) “[P]rior
art cited in a patent . . . constitutes intrinsic evidence.”
Kumar v. Ovonic Battery Co., 351 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
- 11 -

Case 1:18-cv-00281-WO-JEP Document 234 Filed 06/02/22 Page 11 of 15

2003). Prior art citations can be examined to see how a disputed
patent claim term was previously used. Id. (explaining that a
claim term may be construed based on “its usage in the prior art
that was cited in the patent”). But here the language Plaintiff
proffers from a prior art citation does not include any terms
that are in the disputed claim limitation at issue. (Pl.’s Br.
(Doc. 215) at 6 (“[O]ne prior art reference cited on the face of
the patents at issue explains with respect to linear actuators
that ‘its ultimate embodiment is a matter of choice, the
requirement being simply that the two relative pivots 9 and 15
can be drawn together and spread apart.’” (quoting Doc. 216-2 at
3:20-24)).) Thus, the probative value of this evidence is
limited and outweighed by the specification evidence supporting
Defendants’ proposed construction.
To summarize, three sources of intrinsic evidence have been
put forward by the parties: the claim language, the
specification, and a prior art citation from the patents. The
claim language is ambiguous, and the prior art citation is of
limited probative value; consequently, the specification tips the
scale decisively in favor of Defendants’ “lengthwise extremity”

- 12 -

Case 1:18-cv-00281-WO-JEP Document 234 Filed 06/02/22 Page 12 of 15

construction.5 The Federal Circuit has held that when construing
claims the specification usually “is dispositive,” Phillips, 415
F.3d at 1315, and it is in this case. However, this court
stresses that the adoption of the “lengthwise extremity”
construction does not limit the claimed actuating unit to solely
the rod-style actuator disclosed in the specification.
To provide greater clarity and to orient the direction of
“lengthwise,” this court will add language to the construction
defining “length” as “the axis in which the [power actuating

5

The parties also proffer various extrinsic evidence
sources. But because extrinsic evidence is inherently less
reliable, it should only be consulted when the intrinsic
evidence fails to resolve a disputed term’s ambiguity. See
Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583 (“In most situations, an analysis of
the intrinsic evidence alone will resolve any ambiguity in a
disputed claim term. In such circumstances, it is improper to
rely on extrinsic evidence.”).
Here, the intrinsic evidence itself conclusively resolves
the disputed term’s ambiguity so there is no need to examine any
extrinsic evidence. Indeed, the extrinsic evidence advanced by
the parties exemplifies the inherent weaknesses in such
evidence. Defendants offer three dictionary definitions that
define “end” in accordance with their proposed construction.
(Defs.’ Br. (Doc. 219) at 3–4.) But “claims are construed as they
would be understood by a hypothetical person of skill in the
art,” and these definitions are from general purpose dictionaries
which are not “written by or for skilled artisans and therefore
may not reflect the understanding of a skilled artisan in the
field of the patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. The extrinsic
evidence Plaintiff marshals—testimony from its expert and one of
the patents’ inventors, (Pl.’s Br. (Doc. 215) at 5–6)—is even
less reliable, Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1585 (Because dictionaries
“are accessible to the public in advance of litigation . . .
[t]hey are to be preferred over” “testimony, whether it be of .
. . a technical expert, or the inventor, on the proper
construction of a disputed claim term.”).
- 13 -

Case 1:18-cv-00281-WO-JEP Document 234 Filed 06/02/22 Page 13 of 15

unit/actuating unit/linear actuating unit] moves forwardly and
rearwardly.” This language prevents a party from attempting to
describe a different direction for “length”—such as laterally
across the actuating unit—and claiming the extremities according
to that direction are the “lengthwise extremities” of the
actuating unit. That would be inconsistent with the patent and is
foreclosed by this clarifying language.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, this court construes the
“opposed first and second ends” claim limitation as “the
lengthwise extremities of the [power actuating unit/actuating
unit/linear actuating unit], wherein length is defined by the
axis in which the [power actuating unit/actuating unit/linear
actuating unit] moves forwardly and rearwardly.”
Within five days of the issuance of this Order, the parties
shall meet and confer to discuss whether in light of this adopted
construction there is a need for additional expert reports,
expert disclosures, and summary judgment briefing. If so, the
parties shall set deadlines to complete this work, including any
responsive briefing, by July 11, 2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

- 14 -

Case 1:18-cv-00281-WO-JEP Document 234 Filed 06/02/22 Page 14 of 15

This the 2nd day of June, 2022.

________________________________
United States District Judge

- 15 -

Case 1:18-cv-00281-WO-JEP Document 234 Filed 06/02/22 Page 15 of 15