Agio International Company, Ltd. v. JMH Trading International Management, LLC dba World Source

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER that claim construction contained herein shall govern remaining proceedings of this action; FURTHER ORDERED that parties shall conduct a supplemental attorneys' conference within 14 days of entry of this Order and submit to the Court proposed deadlines for inclusion in Utility Patent Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan within 7 days thereafter. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 2/09/2018. (ejb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:15-cv-00192-MR

AGIO INTERNATIONAL COMPANY,
LTD.,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
ZHEJAING LONGDA FORGE CO.,
)
LTD., and JMH TRADING
)
INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT,
)
LLC, d/b/a World Source,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OF
DECISION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court for construction of the claims found
in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,293,624 (“the ‘624 Patent”) and 6,585,323 (“the ‘323
Patent”). The asserted patents relate to sling chairs. The Plaintiff asserts
Claims 1-5 of the ‘624 Patent and Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-11, and 14-16 of the
‘323 Patent.
I.

BACKGROUND
A.

Overview of the Patents

The asserted patents relate to furniture items known as sling chairs, or
chairs generally having “a fabric seating member [that] is stretched taut
between and retained by entrapment within side rails.” ‘624 Patent at 1:53-

56.1 Claim 1 of the ‘624 Patent and Claims 1, 6, and 11 of the ‘323 Patent
are independent and generally recite sling chair components including: a
fabric seat panel with flexible rods inserted into loops at opposite panel
edges, a pair of side rails, and a rigid cross member. The side rails have a
channel or “slot” for receiving and retaining the flexible rod, and a “socket”
for receiving an end of the rigid cross member. Dependent claims recite
features such as “at least one leg.”
The common specification describes embodiments of a sling chair
having a fabric panel 14 stretched between two side rails 20, 22 to form the
seat of the chair. See, e.g., ‘624 Patent Fig. 1 (showing an exemplary sling
chair embodiment). Sides of fabric panel 14 include a loop 36 surrounding
a flexible rod 44. ‘624 Patent at 3:26-47. The loop and rod may be inserted
into what the specification labels a “keyhole shaped slot 38,” which “includes
a relatively wide section 40 and a relatively narrow neck section 42 which
passes entirely through the wall of side rail 20.” ‘624 Patent at 3:33-36. Wide
section 40 is internal to the side rail (except at the terminal ends of the side

The ‘323 patent is a continuation of the ‘624 Patent. A “continuation” application uses
the same specification as the parent application. See NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion,
Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“As continuations of that single parent
application, these patents contain the same written descriptions as the [parent] patent.”).
Common claim terms are thus construed the same for both patents. Id. at 1293. For the
sake of simplicity, this memorandum cites only to the ‘624 Patent specification using the
column:line-line format.
1

2

rail), and the neck section 42 is exposed to an outside surface to allow the
fabric panel to exit the side rail. ‘624 Patent at 3:38-44. The excerpt from
Figure 3 of the ‘624 Patent shows the neck section 42 prevents the loop 36
and rod 44 from passing out of the slot 38, thereby trapping the fabric panel
in place. ‘624 Patent at 3:45-51. The slide rail slot arrangement may be
included on side rails to form a fabric panel seat.
The specification also discloses a socket and cross member
arrangement. The demonstrative embodiment shows side rails 20 and 22,
each with a respective extension 24 and 26. Each extension has a socket
30 configured to accept ends 32 or 34 of a cross member 28. ‘624 Patent at
3:5-10. Cross member 28 is both ornamental and has a structural function
to keep the side rails 20, 22 spaced apart. ‘624 Patent at 2:65-3:1. When
the cross member’s length is “at least as great in magnitude” as the fabric
panel’s width, the panel becomes adequately tight for use as a chair. ‘624
Patent at 3:9-17. The side rail sockets and the cross member ends may be
“configured other than as circular, thereby serving as keys opposing rotation
of cross member 28 within sockets 30.” ‘624 Patent at 3:19-22. Although
socket 30 in Fig. 3 is shown as having a dumbbell shape, the specification
explicitly teaches that the socket need not be limited to the shape shown in
disclosed embodiments. ‘624 Patent at 3:22-25. Similarly, the specification
3

acknowledges that the disclosed embodiments are “susceptible to variations
and modifications that may be introduced thereto without departing from the
inventive concept.”

‘624 Patent at 4:1-4.

For example, although leg

assemblies 16 and 18 connected to frame 12 (see, e.g., ‘624 Patent at 2:5157), the specification teaches that “legs may be modified from the
embodiment depicted” and are shown as “exemplary only and [are] not
intended in a limiting sense.” ‘624 Patent at 4:16-17 and 4:39-41.
B.

Prosecution History

The ‘624 Patent issued on September 25, 2001 from an application
filed on April 18, 2000.2 The ‘323 Patent is a continuation of the ‘624 Patent,
and issued on July 1, 2003 from an application filed on September 24, 2001.
The Examiner issued a first action notice of allowance on the ‘624 Patent,
allowing the claims as filed. [Doc. 33, Ex. D at 72-76]. Prosecution of the
’323 Patent included a June 5, 2002 office action in which the Examiner
issued a statutory double patenting rejection in view of the ‘624 Patent. [Doc.
33, Ex. E at 46-49]. In its October 7, 2002 response, the applicant cancelled
the pending claims and added new Claims 7-20. [Id. at 123-37]. The
December 23, 2002 office action rejected pending Claims 17 and 18 for

Copies of the prosecution histories are attached to the Plaintiff’s Claim Construction
Brief [Doc. 33] as Exhibits D and E.
2

4

alleged new matter and Claims 2-5 and 7-20 for indefiniteness, but indicated
that Claims 2-5, 7-16, 19, and 20 would be allowable if amended to overcome
the rejections. [Id. at 138-43]. Applicant’s February 4, 2003 amendment
cancelled Claim 17 and revised the remaining claims to overcome the
indefiniteness rejection. [Id. at 147-63]. The Examiner issued a notice of
allowance shortly thereafter. [Id. at 164-66].
II.

THE PRINCIPLES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
The first step in making a determination of patent infringement is a

construction of the claims of the patent in order to determine the scope of
each claim. Bell Atlantic Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Communications
Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This determination,
called claim construction, is a question of law for the Court. Id.; Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970-71 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d, 517
U.S. 370 (1996). In claim construction, the Court determines the meaning of
the words used in the claims. Id. at 976. Only when the claim is properly
understood can a determination be made as to whether it reads on an
accused device or is invalid. Id.
“Claim construction seeks to ascribe the ‘ordinary and customary
meaning’ to claim terms as they would be understood to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of invention.” Liberty Ammunition, Inc. v. United
5

States, 835 F.3d 1388, 1395 (Fed. Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1825
(2017) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(en banc)). A person skilled in the art will read the claim terms in the context
of not only the claims in dispute but also “in the context of the entire patent,
including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. The Federal Circuit
has cautioned, however:
The written description . . . is not a substitute for, nor
can it be used to rewrite, the chosen claim language.
Specifications teach.
Claims claim.
Though
understanding the claim language may be aided by
the explanations contained in the written description,
it is important not to import into a claim limitations that
are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular
embodiment appearing in the written description may
not be read into a claim when the claim language is
broader than the embodiment.
SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Where the claim language and specification provide an unambiguous
construction, it is unnecessary to consult the prosecution history.
See Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1334
(Fed. Cir. 2001). The prosecution history may be consulted to ascertain if
the inventor made any express representations in obtaining the patent
regarding its scope and the meaning of the claims. Bell Atlantic, 262 F.3d at
1269. Only as a last resort should extrinsic evidence, such as expert witness
6

testimony or learned treatises, be consulted. “In those cases where the
public record unambiguously describes the scope of the patented invention,
reliance on any extrinsic evidence is improper.”

Vitronics Corp. v.

Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
In the end, “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and
[that] most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will
be . . . the correct construction.” Renishaw P.L.C. v. Marposs Societa' per
Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
III.

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
A.

Disputed Claim Elements Appearing in Both Patents

The following disputed claim elements appear in asserted claims from
both patents. Because these terms are used in related patents, they should
be given the same meaning in both the ‘624 and ‘323 Patents. NTP, 418
F.3d at 1293.
1.

“rigid cross member”

Claim 1 of the ‘624 Patent includes the following limitation:
1.
A sling chair comprising a frame, . . . wherein said frame
includes
*
*
*
a rigid cross member having length at least as great in
magnitude as said width of said fabric seat panel, a
first end, and a second end, wherein each one of said
first end and said second end of said cross member
7

is dimensioned and configured to be received in
close cooperation by one of said sockets.
‘624 Patent at 4:49-67 and 5:1-10 (emphasis added). Claims 1, 6, and 11 of
the ‘323 Patent include the following related limitation:
a rigid cross member having a first end and a
second end, wherein each one of said first end and
said second end of said cross member is
dimensioned and configured to be received in close
cooperation by one of said sockets.
‘323 Patent at 5:4-7; 5:35-39; 6:28-31 (emphasis added).
The Plaintiff contends that the term “rigid cross member” should be
construed, in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning, as requiring
only a member for crossing the sling chair (i.e., extending between side rails)
that is rigid (i.e., not flexible). The Defendant, on the other hand, proposes
that the term “rigid cross member” be construed in context as part of the
phrase in which it appears.

Thus, for Claim 1 of the ‘624 Patent, the

Defendant contends that the phrase should be construed as “a generally
horizontal member extending past the interior side of the slot in each of the
side rails and into the sockets of the rail and where the ends of member have
the same shape as and are just slightly smaller in size than the socket so as
to be held securely in the socket without need of further securing devices
such as screws.”

8

The specification broadly discloses embodiments in which “side rails
[are] adapted to accept cross members which span and space apart the two
side rails.” ‘624 Patent at 1:58-64; see also ‘624 Patent at 1:66-2:9 and 2:573:25; see also Fig. 1 (showing cross member 28 crossing chair 10). The
specification refers to “cross member” approximately twenty times, but it
refers to a “rigid cross member” only once.

See ‘624 Patent at 2:65

(describing cross member 28 in Fig. 1). There is nothing in the specification
that suggests that “rigid cross member” is intended to be any different than
“cross member.” Indeed, cross member 28 is described as maintaining side
rails in a “spaced apart relation,” a description which suggests rigidity. See,
e.g., ‘624 Patent at 2:67-3:1. Thus, a plain reading of the specification
appears to support the Plaintiff’s construction of “rigid cross member,” that
is, a member for crossing the sling chair (i.e., extending between side rails)
that is rigid (i.e., not flexible).
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff’s proposed claim construction
of “rigid cross member” fails because it attempts to divorce the rigid cross
member from its function as defined by the claim term and the specification
in an effort to broaden the claims of the ‘624 and ‘323 Patents.

The

Defendant argues that the specification clearly delineates the significance
and function of requiring use of the “rigid cross member,” namely that this
9

cross member performs the structural functions of holding the side rails apart
and maintaining sufficient tension to provide support to the person seated on
the chair:
Those portions of side rails 20, 22 extending beyond
fabric panel 14, which while be[ing] termed
extensions 24, 26, engage a rigid cross member 28.
Cross member 28 is both ornamental and also
performs a structural function.
Namely, cross
member 28 holds side rails 20, 22 in spaced apart
relation.
‘624 Patent at 2:63-3:1.
Cross member 28 has length at least as great in
magnitude as the width of fabric seat panel 14, so
that after assembly in the configuration shown in FIG.
1, seat panel 14 is maintained under sufficient
tension as to provide a slightly resilient supporting
surface for a person seated on chair 10.
‘624 Patent at 3:12-17.

In order to accomplish these functions, the

Defendant argues, the cross member must be “generally horizontal,” as any
other configuration would fail to adequately hold the rails in a space apart
relation or maintain sufficient tension in the fabric seat panel.
The Defendant further argues that the claim requirement that the ends
of each cross member be “dimensioned and configured to be received in
close cooperation by one of said sockets” could not be met if the ends of the
socket were a different shape or substantially smaller than, the same size
as, or larger than the socket. Rather, the Defendant argues, the rigid cross
10

member must be the same shape and just slightly smaller in size than the
socket without the need for additional securing devices.

Indeed, the

Defendant argues, if the ends had a different shape, they would by definition
not be “in close cooperation with” the sockets.
The Defendant contends that the specification also supports its
proposed construction that the ends of the cross member fit securely in the
socket without the use of other securing devices such as screws. When
discussing the connecting the leg assemblies, the specification states that
the leg assemblies may be connected to the frame “in any suitable way,”
including the use of bolts.

‘624 Patent at 2:53-57.

In contrast, the

specification describes the ends of the cross member being inserted,
received, accepted or engaged in the hollow openings (i.e., sockets) in close
cooperation, without any mention of any use of screws or bolts.
With respect to Claim 1 of the ‘624 Patent, the Defendant notes that
the patentee used a phrase that is nearly identical to that in Claims 1, 6, and
11 of the ‘323 Patent with the sole distinction being that Claim 1 of the ‘624
Patent includes a further limitation that the cross member has a “length at
least as great in magnitude as said width of said fabric seat panel.” Because
the remaining language of the phrase already requires that the cross
member be received in close cooperation with the sockets, the Defendant
11

contends that this additional language must be understood to mean that
cross member must actually be long enough that it is as long as the fabric
seat panel that has been secured inside the side rails.
The Defendant’s construction for “rigid cross member” is erroneous for
several reasons. First, there is nothing in the plain language of the claims
themselves to justify the limitations proposed by the Defendant.

The

Defendant’s proposed construction introduces several phrases not used in
either the claims and which impermissibly narrow the claim scope. For
example, there is no claim recitation relating to a “generally horizontal” cross
member. Indeed, the claims are silent as to the position of one socket
relative to another socket, thereby permitting a wide variety of configurations,
horizontal and otherwise. Further, the specification does not describe a
“generally horizontal member,” nor does it provide guidance on what
qualifies as “generally horizontal.” To the extent Figures 1-3 support the
Defendant’s “rigid cross member” construction, importing limitations from
embodiments is not permitted. See SuperGuide, 358 F.3d at 875.
Further, nothing in the specification or claims requires a rigid cross
member to have “the same shape as and be just slightly smaller in size than
the socket.” Indeed, the specification teaches that “exact configuration of
ends 32, 34 and of sockets 30 is not critical provided that frame 12 will
12

maintain the assembled condition shown in FIG. 1.” ‘624 Patent at 3:22-25.
In other words, the patentee recognized the broad range of possible cross
member and socket configurations and did not intend to limit the claims to a
specific configuration as the Defendant contends.
Additionally, there is no support in the intrinsic evidence for limiting the
scope to embodiments in which the “rigid cross member” is “held securely in
the socket without need of further securing devices such as screws.” The
specification is silent about whether the cross member should be secured
with or without securing devices, and states that the “exact configuration” is
not critical. ‘624 Patent at 3:22-25. The phrase “close cooperation” does not
justify this limitation: the specification uses “close cooperation” for the spatial
relationship of the cross member and sockets; there is nothing to imply that
it describes the cross member’s fit into the sockets.3 See ‘624 Patent at 3:919.
For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that the term “rigid cross
member” as used in the ‘624 and ‘323 Patents should be construed to mean

The Defendant’s proposed construction of “rigid cross member” appears to be premised
on the assumption that the asserted claims are limited to a fully assembled chair. The
Plaintiff contends that the asserted claims are not limited to a fully assembled chair, but
rather recite components in a manner that covers both assembled and disassembled
embodiments. The Court need not resolve this issue at this stage of the proceedings, as
it has no bearing on the construction of the disputed claims before the Court.
3

13

a member for crossing the sling chair (i.e., extending between side rails) that
is rigid (i.e., not flexible).
2.

“socket”

The term “socket” appears in independent Claim 1 and dependent
Claim 3 of the ‘624 Patent as follows:
1.

A sling chair comprising a frame . . . wherein said frame
includes
a first side rail having an interior side and a second side rail
having an interior side, . . . wherein each side rails
has
a

key shaped slot extending
therealong, . . . and

longitudinally

an extension bearing a socket therein, wherein said
extension extends beyond said slot and said
socket opens to said interior side of its
associated said side rail; and
a rigid cross member having length at least as great in
magnitude as said width of said fabric seat panel, a
first end, and a second end, wherein each one of said
first end and said second end of said cross member
is dimensioned and configured to be received in
close cooperation by one of said sockets.
‘624 Patent at 4:49-67 and 5:1-10 (emphasis added).
3.

The sling chair according to claim 1, wherein each said
socket of each said side rail is configured as a key
opposing rotation of said cross member in said socket.

‘624 Patent at 5:13-15 (emphasis added).
14

The term “socket” appears in Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, and 16 of the ‘323
Patent as follows:
1.

A sling chair comprising a frame . . . ., wherein said frame
comprises:
a first side rail and a second side rail defining a seat;
each said first and second side rail having walls defining
an open, longitudinal channel therein . . . ;
each said first and second side rail further having an
extension section defining a socket therein, wherein
said extension section extends beyond said
longitudinal channel defined in said side rail and said
socket opens to an interior side of its associated said
side rail; and
a rigid cross member having a first end and a second end,
wherein each one of said first end and said second
end of said cross member is dimensioned and
configured to be received in close cooperation by one
of said sockets.

‘323 Patent at 4:53-67 and 5:1-7 (emphasis added).
3.
The sling chair according to claim 1, [w]herein each said
socket of each said side rail has a key shaped configuration to
oppose rotation of said cross member in said socket.
‘323 Patent at 5:11-13 (emphasis added).
6.
A sling chair comprising a frame for receiving a fabric
panel . . . wherein said frame comprises:
a first side rail and a second side rail;
each said first and second side rail having walls defining
an open, longitudinal C-shaped channel therein . . .;
15

each said first and second side rail further having an
extension section defining at least one socket
therein, wherein said extension section of said side
rail extends beyond said longitudinal C-shaped
channel and said socket opens to an interior side of
its associated said side rail; and
a rigid cross member having a first end and a second end,
wherein each one of said first end and said second
end of said cross member is dimensioned and
configured to be received in close cooperation by one
of said sockets.
‘323 Patent at 5:19-38 (emphasis added).
7.
The sling chair according to claim 6, wherein each said
socket of each said side rail has a key shaped configuration to
oppose rotation of said cross member in said socket.
‘323 Patent at 5:39-41 (emphasis added).
11. A sling chair comprising a frame . . ., wherein said frame
comprises:
a first side rail and a second side rail defining a seat;
each said first and second side rail having walls defining
a[n] interior pocket section within each said side rail;
said first side rail further having a longitudinal neck section
opening. . .;
said first side rail further having an extension section
defining a socket therein, wherein said extension
section extends beyond said longitudinal opening
defined in said first side rail and said socket opens
to an interior side of said first side rail; and

16

said second side rail further having a longitudinal neck
section opening. . .;
said second side rail further having an extension section
defining a socket therein, wherein said extension
section extends beyond said longitudinal opening
defined in said second side rail and said socket
opens to an interior side of said second side rail; and
a rigid cross member having a first end and a second end,
wherein said first end and said second end of said
cross member are dimensioned and configured to be
received in close cooperation by a respective one of
said sockets.
‘323 Patent at 5:50-54 and 6:1-31 (emphasis added).
16. The sling chair according to claim 11, wherein each said
socket of each said side rail has a key shaped configuration to
oppose rotation of said cross member in said socket.
‘323 Patent at 6:46-49 (emphasis added).
The Plaintiff contends that the term “socket” should be given its plain
and ordinary meaning, that is, “a hollow portion into which something fits.”
See, e.g., http://www.dictionary.com/browse/socket (last visited Feb. 6,
2018) (defining “socket” as “a hollow part or piece for receiving or holding
some part or thing”). The Plaintiff argues that a person of ordinary skill would
find no basis in the specification to depart from this plain meaning, as the
specification simply teaches a socket for receiving a cross member.
Additionally, the Plaintiff notes, Figures 2 and 3 show exemplar socket 30 as
a dumbbell-shaped hollow portion into which an end of cross member 28 fits.
17

The Defendant does not construe “socket” individually, but instead
construes the entire claim phrase in which “socket” appears along with other
elements. Specifically, the Defendant contends that the phrases in Claim 1
of the ‘624 Patent and Claims 1, 6, and 11 of the ‘323 Patent which include
both the extension and the socket, should be construed as “a section of the
side rail which forms an additional length after the slot and includes an
opening on the side facing the interior of the chair, where the opening forms
a holder to accept a rigid cross member therein.”
In support of this construction, the Defendant argues that, in the
specification, the patentee expressly distinguished the present invention
from prior sling chairs on the basis that the invention includes a section of
the side rail which forms an additional length after the slot. ‘624 Patent at
2:1-3 (“In a departure from conventional slings, the side rail extends beyond
the slot, the extension having sockets for accepting the ends of each cross
member.”); see also ‘624 Patent at 2:63-65 (describing Fig. 1: “Those
portions of side rails 20, 22 extending beyond fabric panel 14, which while
[sic] be termed extensions 24, 26, engage a rigid cross member 28.”). The
Defendant further argues that the specification makes clear that the opening
(i.e., sockets) must be on the interior sides of the rails. See ‘624 Patent at
3:6-8 (describing in Fig. 2 that “[e]ach extension 24 or 26 of side rail 20 or 22
18

has a socket 30 formed in the interiorly facing surface of the respective side
rail 20 or 22. Socket 30 opens to the interior side of its associated side rail
20 or 22…”).
The Defendant argues that additional excerpts from the specification
support its proposed construction of the term “socket” as an opening that
forms a holder to accept a rigid cross member therein. See ‘624 Patent,
Abstract (“Each side rail has an extension bearing a socket which accepts
insertion of one end of the cross member.”) (emphasis added); 2:1-3 (“In a
departure from conventional slings, the side rail extends beyond the slot, the
extension having sockets for accepting the ends of each cross member.”)
(emphasis added); 2:3-5 (“During assembly, the side rails are spread apart
until the cross member are inserted into engagement with the side rails.”)
(emphasis added). Further, the Defendant contends that those skilled in the
art would understand by viewing Figures 2 and 3 in the ‘624 Patent that the
invention incorporates the traditional mortise (hole) and tenon (tongue) type
joint, which has long been used in the furniture industry. In order for this type
of joint to be effective, the Defendant argues, the tenon formed on the end
of the cross member must fit directly into the mortise or socket.
The Defendant’s proposed construction must be rejected. The use of
“opening” and “opening forms a holder” to define “socket” creates ambiguity,
19

as it is unclear whether the “opening” would pass entirely through the side
rail (which would prevent the cross member from keeping the side rails
spaced-apart) or what “forms a holder” means, as the specification does not
use that phrase.

Accordingly, the Court adopts the plain meaning

construction of the term “socket” proposed by the Plaintiff, that is, a hollow
portion into which something fits.
3.

“leg”

The term “leg” appears in dependent Claim 2 of the ‘624 Patent and
dependent Claims 2, 9, and 14 of the ‘323 Patent. Specifically, these claims
describe the sling chair claimed in a preceding independent claim along with
the following limitation: “at least one leg connected to said first rail and said
second rail, wherein said leg projects downwardly from said frame.” ‘624
Patent at 5:10-12; ‘323 Patent at 5:8-10; 5:44-46; 6:39-42.
The Plaintiff contends that the term “leg” requires only a member to
support the sling chair above a floor or ground. The Plaintiff argues that this
construction is supported by the specification, which teaches that the sling
chair may include legs to support frame 12 above a floor or ground and
provides leg assemblies 16 and 18 connected to frame 12 as examples. See
‘624 Patent at 2:51-2; see also ‘624 Patent at 4:17-19 (“side rails 20, 22 could
incorporate downwardly oriented projections serving in place of separate
20

legs”); 4:16-17 and 4:39-41 (noting that “legs may be modified from the
embodiment depicted” and are shown as “exemplary only and [are] not
intended in a limiting sense”).
The Defendant does not construe the term “leg” individually, but
instead construes entire claim phrases reciting “leg” as “a support for the
chair which contacts the frame and the ground and projects down from the
frame” (for the ‘624 Patent, Claim 2) or “a support for the chair which contacts
both the first and second rails and the ground” (for the ‘323 Patent, Claims
2, 9, and 14). The Defendant contends that its proposed construction is
supported by both the prior art, and the dictionary definition of “leg,” which
defines a leg as a support of a piece of furniture and showing the exemplar
types of furniture legs, all of which would contact both the furniture frame and
the floor.
The Defendant’s construction must be rejected, as it improperly
replaces “connected to” with “contact,” in contravention of the plain language
of the claims. The phrase “connected to” is clear and is consistent with the
specification’s acknowledgement that legs may be modified from the
preferred embodiment. Further, there is no reason to include a limitation that
the leg “contacts the both the first and second rails and the ground” as such
is neither required by the plain language of the claims or the specification.
21

Accordingly, the Court construes the term “leg” as used in the ‘624 and
‘323 Patents as a member to support the sling chair above a floor or ground.
B.

Claim Elements Unique to the ‘624 Patent
1.

“key shaped slot”

The term “key shaped slot” appears in Claims 1, 5 and 6 of the ‘624
Patent as follows:
1.
A sling chair comprising a frame . . . wherein said frame
includes
a first side rail having an interior side and a second side rail
having an interior side, . . . wherein each side rails
has
a key shaped slot extending longitudinally therealong,
wherein said key shaped slot of each said side rail
has a first section passing entirely through said rail
and a second section communicating with said first
section and located within said rail, wherein said first
section of each said slot has a width and said
second section of each said slot has a width greater
than that of said first section of each said slot and is
dimensioned and configured to receive one said rod
after said rod is passed through one said loop of said
fabric seat panel ….
‘624 Patent at 4:49-67 (emphasis added).
5.
The sling chair according to claim 1, wherein each said side
rail is configured to surround said second section of said key
shaped slot, wherein only said first section of said key shaped
slot is exposed at the exterior of said side rail.
‘624 Patent at 5:19-22 (emphasis added).
22

6.
A sling chair comprising a frame, . . . wherein said frame
includes
a first side rail having an interior side and a second side rail
having an interior side, . . . wherein each side rail has
a key shaped slot extending longitudinally therealong,
wherein said key shaped slot of each said side rail
has a first section passing entirely through said rail
and a second section communicating with said first
section and located within said rail, wherein said first
section of each said sloth has a width and said
second section of each said slot has a width greater
than that of said first section of each said slot and is
dimensioned and configured to receive one said rod
after said rod is passed through one said loop of said
fabric seat panel, wherein each said side rail is
configured to surround said second section of said
key shaped slot, wherein only said first section of
said key shaped slot is exposed at the exterior of
said side rail, and
an extension bearing a socket therein, wherein said
extension extends beyond said slot and said socket
opens to said interior side of its associated said side
rail ….
‘624 Patent at 5:23-31 and 6:1-20 (emphasis added).
The Plaintiff contends that the use of the term “key shaped slot” in the
‘624 Patent refers to the side rail channels that receive the fabric loop 36 and
flexible rod 44, and should be construed as “having a relatively wide section
inside the side rail and a relatively narrow neck section exposed at the
exterior of side rail,” in view of the written description. The Defendant, on

23

the other hand, construes the term “key shaped” slot to refer to a slot “shaped
with a large circular area connected to a smaller rectangular area.”
The specification teaches the use of keyhole shaped slots 38, which
are described as having a “relatively wide section 40 and a relatively narrow
neck section 4” that is “exposed at the exterior of side rail 20 ….” ‘624 Patent
at 3:33-39. According to the specification, the “overall visual effect of slot 38
is that of a keyhole.” ‘624 Patent at 3:38. The fabric loop 36 and flexible rod
44 are inserted into the wide section 40 such that the fabric extends out of
the neck section 42. ‘624 Patent at 3:38-44.
The Defendant’s proposed construction improperly limits the slot to a
specific geometry not even present in the written description. Neither the
specification nor the claims reference a circular area in a side rail slot, much
less specify a specific geometric relationship. Rather, the specification
broadly describes slot 38 as having a wide section and narrow neck section,
unlimited with respect to either section’s shape.

Further, the Patent’s

drawings also fail to support the Defendant’s proposed construction. See
‘624 Patent, Fig. 3 (showing slot 38 as having a rectangular wide section with
an hourglass-shaped neck section). The Court concludes that the Plaintiff’s
proposed construction is true to the claim language and most naturally aligns
with the written description. Accordingly, the Court construes the term “key
24

shaped slot” as a slot having a relatively wide section inside the side rail and
a relatively narrow neck section exposed at the exterior of side rail.
2.

“an extension bearing a socket therein, wherein said
extension extends beyond said slot and said socket
opens to said interior side of its associated said side
rail”

This element appears in Claim 1 of the ‘624 Patent as follows:
1.

A sling chair comprising a frame . . . wherein said frame
includes
a first side rail having an interior side and a second side rail
having an interior side, . . . wherein each side rail has
a

key shaped slot extending
therealong, . . . and

longitudinally

an extension bearing a socket therein, wherein
said extension extends beyond said slot
and said socket opens to said interior side
of its associated said side rail ….
‘624 Patent at 4:49-67 and 5:1-4 (emphasis added).
The Plaintiff contends that this element should be given its plain and
ordinary meaning, incorporating the Plaintiff’s construction for “socket.” The
Plaintiff further argues that there is no need to define “extension” or other
terms in this element with words not found in the specification.
As noted above in the discussion regarding “socket,” the Defendant
proposes that this element be construed as follows: “a section of the side rail
which forms an additional length after the slot and includes an opening on
25

the side facing the interior of the chair, where the opening forms a holder to
accept a rigid cross member therein.”
As the Court previously noted, the Defendant’s use of “opening” to
replace “socket” creates an ambiguity in the construction of this element.
The use of the phrase “the opening forms a holder” also adds ambiguity and
introduces terms not used in the claims or the specification. Further, defining
“extension” as “a section of the side rail which forms an additional length
after the slot and includes an opening on the side facing the interior of the
chair” is unnecessary, as the specification teaches “the side rail extends
beyond the slot, the extension having sockets for accepting the ends of each
cross member,” a teaching which is consistent with the claim language. ‘624
Patent at 2:1-3. It is unclear why defining “beyond” the slot as being “after”
the slot is necessary, or whether “after” even has a different meaning than
“beyond.” With this, the Defendant merely advocates the addition of another
unnecessary ambiguity.
For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that the element “an
extension bearing a socket therein, wherein said extension extends beyond
said slot and said socket opens to said interior side of its associated said
side rail” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, incorporating the
Court’s construction of “socket” stated above.
26

3.

“a rigid cross member having length at least as great
in magnitude as said width of said fabric seat panel, a
first end, and a second end, wherein each one of said
first end and said second end of said cross member is
dimensioned and configured to be received in close
cooperation by one of said sockets”

This element is set forth in Claim 1 of the ‘624 Patent as follows:
1.

A sling chair comprising a frame . . . wherein said frame
includes
a first side rail having an interior side and a second side rail
having an interior side, . . . wherein each side rails
has
a

key shaped slot extending
therealong, . . . and

longitudinally

an extension bearing a socket therein, wherein said
extension extends beyond said slot and said
socket opens to said interior side of its
associated said side rail; and
a rigid cross member having length at least as great in
magnitude as said width of said fabric seat panel,
a first end, and a second end, wherein each one
of said first end and said second end of said
cross member is dimensioned and configured to
be received in close cooperation by one of said
sockets.
‘624 Patent at 4:49-67 and 5:1-10 (emphasis added).
Apart from construing “rigid cross member” and “socket,” the Plaintiff
contends that this claim element should be given its plain and ordinary

27

meaning, as it uses common words in their normal manner that do not
require construction.
As discussed above regarding the term “rigid cross member,” the
Defendant proposes construing this element as “a generally horizontal
member extending past the interior side of the slot in each of the side rails
and into the sockets of the rail and where the ends of member have the same
shape as and are just slightly smaller in size than the socket so as to be held
securely in the socket without need of further securing devices such as
screws.”
For the reasons previously stated, the Court rejects the Defendant’s
proposed construction of this element. The Court concludes that the element
“a rigid cross member having length at least as great in magnitude as said
width of said fabric seat panel, a first end, and a second end, wherein each
one of said first end and said second end of said cross member is
dimensioned and configured to be received in close cooperation by one of
said sockets” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, incorporating
the Court’s construction of the terms “rigid cross member” and “socket.”

28

4.

“at least one leg connected to said first side rail and
second side rail, wherein said leg projects downwardly
from said frame”

Dependent Claim 2 of the ‘624 Patent claims the sling chair according
to independent Claim 1 with the additional element of “at least one leg
connected to said first side rail and second rail, wherein said leg projects
downwardly from said frame.” ‘624 Patent at 5:11-13.
The Plaintiff argues that this claim language is unambiguous, uses
common words, and therefore should be given its plain and ordinary
meaning, incorporating the Plaintiff’s construction of “leg,” as stated above.
As noted above, the Defendant proposes to construe this element as “a
support for the chair which contacts the frame and the ground and projects
down from the frame.”
For the reasons previously stated, the Court concludes that this
element should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, incorporating the
Court’s construction of “leg,” as stated above.
5.

“each said socket of each said side rail is configured
as a key opposing rotation of said cross member in
said socket”

Dependent Claim 3 of the ‘624 Patent claims the sling chair expressed
in Claim 1, with the additional element that “each said socket of each said
side rail is configured as a key opposing rotation of said cross member in
29

said socket.” ‘624 Patent at 5:13-15. The Plaintiff contends that this element
should be construed to mean that the shape of each side rail’s socket is noncircular. Based on the socket 30 shown in Figure 2, the Defendant proposes
the following construction: “the sockets are shaped with a larger circular area
connected to a smaller rectangular area.”
The Defendant’s proposed construction wrongly assumes that the
specification equates “serving as keys opposing rotation” with the specific
shape of socket 30 in Fig. 2. The Court finds that the shape of socket 30 is
more appropriately described “other than as circular” – or non-circular –
which causes the sockets to serve “as keys” for a cross member so as to
prevent the cross member from rotating, and that the dumbbell-shaped
socket 30 in Fig. 2 is only one example of such a key. See ‘624 Patent at
Col. 3:19-22 (noting that Fig. 2 shows a “socket 30 and ends 32, 34 are
configured other than as circular, thereby serving as keys opposing rotation
of cross member 28 within sockets 30”).

Indeed, the specification

acknowledges that the precise shape is not critical. ‘624 Patent at Col. 3:2225.
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the element “each said
socket of each said side rail is configured as a key opposing rotation of said
cross member in said socket” should be construed to mean that the shape
30

of each side rail’s socket is non-circular, and that socket is construed as set
forth supra.
C.

Claim Elements Unique to the ‘323 Patent
1.

“key shaped configuration”

The term “key shaped configuration” appears in Claims 3, 7, and 16 of
the ‘323 Patent as follows:
3.
The sling chair according to claim 1, [w]herein each said
socket of each said side rail has a key shaped configuration to
oppose rotation of said cross member in said socket.
‘323 Patent at 5:11-13 (emphasis added).
7.
The sling chair according to claim 6, wherein each said
socket of each said side rail has a key shaped configuration to
oppose rotation of said cross member in said socket.
‘323 Patent at 5:38-41 (emphasis added).
16. The sling chair according to claim 11, wherein each said
socket of each said side rail has a key shaped configuration to
oppose rotation of said cross member in said socket.
‘323 Patent at 6:46-49 (emphasis added).
The Plaintiff contends that the term “key shaped configuration” as used
in the ‘323 Patent should be construed simply as a configuration having a
non-circular shape. The Defendant, on the other hand, contends that the
“key shaped” modifier for the term “configuration” should be construed the
same as the “key shaped” modifier for the term “slot,” discussed supra.
31

Accordingly, the Defendant argues that a “key shaped configuration” should
be construed as a configuration which is “shaped with a large circular area
connected to a smaller rectangular area.”
The specification notes that in Figure 2 of the ‘624 Patent, “socket 30
and ends 32, 34 are configured other than as circular, thereby serving as
keys opposing rotation of cross member 28 within sockets 30.” ‘624 Patent
at 3:19-22. As shown in Figure 2, Socket 30 has a dumbbell shape. The
Defendant relies upon this drawing to argue in favor of construing “key
shaped configuration” to mean that the sockets are shaped with a larger
circular area connected to a smaller rectangular area. The Defendant’s
construction, however, erroneously assumes that the specification equates
“serving as keys opposing rotation” with the specific shape of socket 30 in
Figure 2. To the contrary, the specification describes the shape of socket 30
as “other than as circular” – or non-circular – which causes the sockets to
serve “as keys” opposing rotation for a cross member. Id. The specification
makes clear that the dumbbell-shaped socket 30 shown in Figure 2 is only
one example of such a key, and that the precise shape is not critical, so long
as the shape can resist rotational motion of the cross member. See ‘624
Patent at 3:22-25. Logically, a circular socket has no surface by which to
resist rotational motion of a cross member, whereas a non-circular socket
32

(whatever shape that may be) could be configured to resist rotation of a
counter-surface. To construe “key shaped configuration” as proposed by the
Defendant would improperly limit construction of the term to a preferred
embodiment.4 See SciMedLife Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys.,
Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (describing the reading of a
limitation from the specification into the claims as “one of the cardinal sins of
patent law”).
For all of these reasons, the Court construes the term “key shaped
configuration” as a configuration having a non-circular shape.
2.

“each said first and second side rail further having an
extension section defining a socket therein”

Independent Claims 1 and 6 of the ‘323 Patent each claim a sling chair
comprising a frame which has first and second side rails, with “each said first
and second side rail further having an extension section defining a socket
therein.” ‘323 Patent at 4:65-67; 5:29-30. The Plaintiff argues that this
element requires no construction other than for the term “socket” as set forth
above. The Defendant proposes, for the reasons set forth above, that this
element should be construed as “a section of the side rail which forms an

4

Indeed, the embodiment expressed in Figure 2, which is generally shaped as a dumbbell
with two large circular areas connected to a smaller rectangular area, refutes the
Defendant’s own proposed construction that the configuration is shaped with only one
large circular area connected to a smaller rectangular area.
33

additional length after the slot and includes an opening on the side facing the
interior of the chair, where the opening forms a holder to accept a rigid cross
member therein.”
For the reasons previously stated, the Court concludes that this
element should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, incorporating the
Court’s construction of “socket,” as stated above.
3.

“a rigid cross member having a first end and a second
end, wherein each one of said first end and said
second end of said cross member is dimensioned and
configured to be received in close cooperation by one
of said sockets”

This claim element appears in independent Claims 1, 6, and 11 of the
‘323 Patent. ‘323 Patent at 5:4-7; 5:35-38; 6:28-31. The Plaintiff contends
that the Court should adopt its constructions of “rigid cross member” and
“socket” for the reasons stated above, giving the rest of the element its plain
and ordinary meaning. The Defendant proposes that this element should be
construed as “a generally horizontal member extending past the interior side
of the slot in each of the side rails and into the sockets of the rail and where
the ends of member have the same shape as and are just slightly smaller in
size than the socket so as to be held securely in the socket without need of
further securing devices such as screws.”

34

For the reasons previously stated, the Court concludes that the
element that the element “a rigid cross member having a first end and a
second end, wherein each one of said first end and said second end of said
cross member is dimensioned and configured to be received in close
cooperation by one of said sockets” should be given its plain and ordinary
meaning, incorporating the Court’s construction of the terms “rigid cross
member” and “socket.”
4.

“at least one leg connected to said first rail and said
second rail”

Dependent Claims 2, 9, and 14 of the ‘323 Patent each describe the
sling chair claimed in a preceding independent claim along with the following
limitation: “at least one leg connected to said first rail and said second rail,
wherein said leg projects downwardly from said frame.” ‘323 Patent at 5:810; 5:44-46; 6:39-42.
The Plaintiff contends that the term “leg” is the only term in this element
that requires construction. As noted above, the Defendant contends that the
term “leg” has to be construed in context of the entire phrase, which should
be construed as “a support for the chair which contacts both the first and
second rails and the ground.”
For the reasons previously stated, the Court concludes that the
element “at least one leg connected to said first rail and said second rail,
35

wherein said leg projects downwardly from said frame” should be given its
plain and ordinary meaning, incorporating the Court’s construction of “leg,”
as stated above.
5.

“a key shaped configuration to oppose rotation of said
cross member in said socket”

As discussed above with respect to the term “key shaped
configuration,” this element appears in dependent Claims 3, 7, and 16 of the
‘323 Patent. As discussed above, the Plaintiff contends that this element
should be construed to mean that the shape of each side rail’s socket is noncircular. The Defendant proposes the same construction as it does for the
“configured as a key” element in Claim 3 of the ‘623 Patent. For the reasons
previously stated, the Court construes the element ““a key shaped
configuration to oppose rotation of said cross member in said socket” to
mean that the shape of each side rail’s socket is non-circular.
6.

“said first side rail further having an extension section
defining a socket therein”/“said second side rail
further having an extension section defining a socket
therein”

These elements appear in independent Claim 11 of the ‘323 Patent
and relate to the side rail extensions. ‘323 Patent at 6:11-27. The Plaintiff
contends that these elements should be given their plain and ordinary
meaning, incorporating “socket” as discussed above. As discussed above,
36

the Defendant proposes that these elements should be construed as “a
section of the side rail which forms an additional length after the slot and
includes an opening on the side facing the interior of the chair, where the
opening forms a holder to accept a rigid cross member therein.” For the
reasons previously stated, the Court concludes that the elements “said first
side rail further having an extension section defining a socket therein” and
“said second side rail further having an extension section defining a socket
therein” should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, incorporating the
Court’s construction of the term “socket,” as discussed above.

ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the claim construction contained
herein shall govern the remaining proceedings of this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall conduct a
supplemental attorneys’ conference within fourteen (14) days of the entry of
this Order and submit to the Court proposed deadlines for inclusion in the
Utility Patent Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan within seven (7)
days thereafter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: February 9, 2018

37