Vita-Mix Corporation et al v. Blendtec, Inc.

Filing 45

Memorandum of Opinion and Order: This matter is before the Court upon the parties' Claim Constructions Briefs (Docs. 38 , 39 ). This is a patent case involving claims directed at a blending jar. The Court construes the disputed claim terms as follows: (1) "not centered relative to the bottom surface" means "not positioned on the centroid of the bottom surface" (2) "not centered relative to the side wall at height of the blade assembly" means " not positioned on the centroid of the area defined by the side wall at the height of the blade assembly"(3) "bottom surface having a periphery" means "container's interior bottom surface having a periphery" (4) "bot tom surface that is at least partially sloped" is afforded its plain and ordinary meaning. (5) "at least partially sloped bottom" is afforded its plain and ordinary meaning. (6) "at least a portion of the bottom surface is slope d downwardly from a side toward the blade assembly" is afforded its plain and ordinary meaning. (7) "bottom surface that is sloped" is afforded its plain and ordinary meaning. For the foregoing reasons, the Court construes the disputed claims as set forth herein. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 5/20/16. (LC,S)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Vitamix Corporation, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Vs.
Blentec, Inc.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:15 CV 1118
JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN

Memorandum of Opinion and Order

INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court upon the parties’ Claim Constructions Briefs (Docs. 38,
39). This is a patent case involving claims directed at a blending jar. The Court construes the
disputed claim terms as follows:
(1) “not centered relative to the bottom surface”means “not positioned on the centroid of
the bottom surface”
(2) “not centered relative to the side wall at height of the blade assembly” means “not
positioned on the centroid of the area defined by the side wall at the height of the blade
assembly”
1

(3) “bottom surface having a periphery” means “container’s interior bottom surface
having a periphery”
(4) “bottom surface that is at least partially sloped” is afforded its plain and ordinary
meaning.
(5) “at least partially sloped bottom” is afforded its plain and ordinary meaning.
(6) “at least a portion of the bottom surface is sloped downwardly from a side toward the
blade assembly” is afforded its plain and ordinary meaning.
(7) “bottom surface that is sloped” is afforded its plain and ordinary meaning.
FACTS
Plaintiffs, Vita-Mix Corporation, Vita-Mix Management Corporation, and Vita-Mix
Manufacturing Corporation (collectively “plaintiff”) bring this lawsuit against defendant
Blendtec, Inc. alleging patent infringement. According to the complaint, defendant infringes
Patent No. 8,753,004 (“’004 Patent”). Plaintiff and defendant both compete in the commercial
blender market. Plaintiff alleges that defendant directly infringes at least claim[s] 1-6, 8-9, 14,
20, 24, 28, 33, and 43 of the ’004 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and selling, without
limitation, its “WildSide” and “WildSide+” product lines of blender jars.
ANALYSIS
“[T]he interpretation and construction of patent claims, which define the scope of the
patentee’s rights under the patent, is a matter of law exclusively for the court.” Markman v.
Westview Instruments, 52 F.3d 967, 970-71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370
(1996). “To ascertain the meaning of claims, [the court considers] three sources: The claims,
the specification, and the prosecution history.” Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. The words of a claim

2

are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The ordinary and customary meaning is to be determined from the
perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. at 1313.
“Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in
the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the
entire patent, including the specification.” Id.
Accordingly, the court first looks to the claim itself, read in view of the specification. Id.
at 1315 (The 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.”). However, while
the court may look to the written description to define a term already in a claim limitation, the
court may not read a limitation from the written description into a claim. Id. at 1323.
As stated above, the prosecution history should also be considered by the court when
conducting claim construction. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. The “prosecution history can often
inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the
invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the
claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.” Id.; see also Chimie v. PPG Indus., Inc., 402
F.3d 1371, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The purpose of consulting the prosecution history in
construing a claim is to exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution.”).
Claims may not be construed one way in order to obtain their allowance and in a different way
against accused infringers. Chimie, 402 F.3d at 1384. Moreover, the prosecution history of a
parent application applies with equal force to a later patent that contains the same claim
limitation. Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also

3

Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“the prosecution
history of one patent is relevant to an understanding of the scope of a common term in a second
patent stemming from the same parent application”). “The relevant inquiry is whether a
competitor would reasonably believe that the applicant had surrendered the relevant subject
matter.” Cybor Corp. v. Fas Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
All other evidence is considered extrinsic and may be relied upon by the court in its
discretion. Markman, 52 F.3d at 980; Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. However, extrinsic evidence is
less reliable than intrinsic evidence. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. Thus, the court should restrict
its reliance on extrinsic evidence to educating itself regarding the field of invention or to
determining what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the claim terms to
mean. Id. at 1319; see also Markman, 52 F.3d at 986 (“It is not ambiguity in the document that
creates the need for extrinsic evidence but rather unfamiliarity of the court with the terminology
of the art to which the patent is addressed.”). Extrinsic evidence may not be used for the purpose
of varying or contradicting the terms of the claims. Markman, 52 F.3d at 981.
As a result, excessive reliance should not be placed on dictionaries. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1321. “The main problem with elevating the dictionary to such prominence is that it focuses the
inquiry on the abstract meaning of words rather than on the meaning of claim terms within the
context of the patent. ... [H]eavy reliance on the dictionary divorced from the intrinsic evidence
risks transforming the meaning of the claim term to the artisan into the meaning of the term in
the abstract, out of its particular context, which is the specification.” Id.
The parties have identified seven claim terms that they deem must be construed by the
Court. (1) not centered relative to the bottom surface; (2) not centered relative to the side wall at

4

height of the blade assembly; (3) bottom surface having a periphery; (4) bottom surface that is at
least partially sloped; (5) at least partially sloped bottom; (6) at least a portion of the bottom
surface is sloped downwardly from a side toward the blade assembly; and (7) bottom surface that
is sloped.
1. “not centered relative to the bottom surface”
Plaintiff’s proposed construction: “not positioned on the centroid of the bottom surface”
Defendant’s proposed construction: “sufficiently off-center with respect to the bottom
surface to create a flow pattern where the up-flow of ingredients occurs only over a portion of
the circumference of the blades and an uninterrupted down flow through the blades will occur
around the remaining portion of the circumference”
The Court’s construction: “not positioned on the centroid of the bottom surface”
Defendant argues that plaintiff’s proposed construction would encompass containers that
produce an air flow pattern that the invention aims to eliminate. According to defendant, both
the claims and specification emphasize the disadvantage of the vortex flow pattern in prior art
blenders. That flow pattern is described as follows:
[T]he fluid is drawn down through the blades, generally near the center thereof. The
fluid then returns to the main body of the container by passing upwardly through the gap
between the circumferential tip of the blades and the perimeter of the container.
The ’004 Patent provides that this flow pattern is not acceptable for blending viscous
liquids. Defendant argues that the ’004 Patent discloses that an object of the invention is to
provide a container that “creates an irregular flow pattern to discourage the formation of an air
pocket around the blades[.]” Defendant further argues that the ’004 Patent “links” the noncentered blade feature of the invention to a “very specific nonuniform flow pattern.” According

5

to defendant, as a result of the noncentered blade assembly, “a fluid flow pattern, shown by the
arrows in Fig.1 is created. This flow pattern is to be contrasted with the flow pattern of the prior
art and avoids those problems.” According to defendant, Fig. 1 demonstrates that the up-flow is
to occur only over a portion of the circumference of the blades 21, and uninterrupted down flow
through the blades will occur around the remaining portion of the circumference.1
Defendant’s argument essentially centers around the claim that plaintiff’s proposed
construction will encompass blender jars that produce the unwanted flow pattern described in the
prior art. Thus, in layman’s terms, it appears that defendant is claiming that unless the vertical
axis of the blade assembly is “sufficiently” off-center, the unwanted flow pattern will in fact
result.
In response, plaintiff argues that the patentee of the ’004 Patent acted as lexicographer
for the “not centered” language. Specifically, plaintiff notes that the specification in the patent
states that:
The container 15 of the present invention includes several features which enable it to
more efficiently blend ingredients which were heretofore difficult to blend.... One of
those features relates to the position of the blade assembly 20 in container 15. As shown
in the drawings, blade assembly 20 is not centered relative to bottom surface 16. That
is...the axis of rotation of 55 blades 21...is not positioned on the centroid of the bottom
surface.
Plaintiff further argues that defendant’s proposed construction violates a number of other
principles of claim construction. According to plaintiff, defendant’s proposed construction is
exceedingly confusing. Plaintiff argues that it would be impossible to determine infringement or

1

Defendant further argues that the prosecution history supports its
argument. Defendant points out that plaintiff argued to the Patent
Trial and Appeal Board that the “not centered” limitations are
directed at solving the flow problem.
6

invalidity based on defendant’s proposed definition because an individual would need to build
the blender jar in order to determine if the limitation is met. In addition, defendant wrongfully
attempts to import unclaimed functional limitations into the claim term. According to plaintiff,
the specification’s description predicts that a certain fluid flow pattern would result from the
“features” of the invention. But, the patent’s claims only cover the structure of the blender jar
and do not attempt to claim any resulting function. In addition, plaintiff points out that the flow
pattern does not result solely from the placement of the blade assembly. Rather, other features,
including the non-symmetrical bottom surface and the sloped bottom surface also contribute to
the enhanced flow pattern. Thus, the Court should not read the functional limitation solely onto
the “centered” claims.
Defendant also argues that the extrinsic evidence supports its proposed construction.
Defendant relies on an engineering textbook that explains that the position of the blade is critical
because any slight deviation in position may result in undesirable flow pattern, including those
patterns the patent is designed to avoid. As such, defendant claims that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would understand “not centered” as requiring the blade axis to be off center such that
the beneficial tumbling flow pattern “taught in the ’004 Patent” is achieved. Defendant also
relies on its expert report, in which its expert opines that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not understand the term “not centered” to mean any degree of shift from the centroid because not
all of those shifts would obtain the desired flow. In addition, defendant points out that the
inventor testified that the invention’s purpose is to “cut” the vortex and so that it dissipates.
Upon review, the Court construes “not centered relative to the bottom surface” to mean
“not positioned on the centroid of the bottom surface.” “When a patentee explicitly defines a

7

claim term in the patent specification, the patentee’s definition controls.” Martek Biosciences
Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Here, as pointed out by plaintiff, the
patentee provided an express definition of this phrase:
As shown in the drawings, blade assembly 20 is not centered relative to bottom surface
16. That is...the axis of rotation of 55 blades 21...is not positioned on the centroid of the
bottom surface.
By using the phrase “that is” the patentee demonstrated his intent to define the term “not
centered relative to the bottom surface.” See, e.g., Lectec Corp. v. Chattem, Inc., 2010 WL
10861324 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(using phrase “i.e.,” which translates into “that is” to demonstrate that
patentee clearly expressed intent to define the term); Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc.,
582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009)(use of “i.e.” signals intent to define the word to which it refers).
The patentee defined the term to mean “not positioned on the centroid of the bottom surface.”
Because the patentee expressly defined this term, the Court adopts this construction.
The Court rejects defendant’s argument that the term requires further construction to
account for the fact that the purpose of the patent is to achieve a desired air flow. As an initial
matter, plaintiff correctly notes that the Court should not import a functional limitation to a
nonfunctional phrase. See, Ecolab, Inc. V. Envirochem, Inc., 264 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir.
2001)(“where the function is not recited in the claim itself by the patentee, we do not import
such a limitation”). Here, the phrase “not centered relative to the bottom surface” contains no
functional limitation and the Court will not impose one. Moreover, defendant’s argument that
this phrase must be construed to mean “sufficiently off-center with respect to the bottom surface
to create a flow pattern where the up-flow of ingredients occurs only over a portion of the
circumference of the blades and an uninterrupted down flow through the blades will occur

8

around the remaining portion of the circumference” is misguided in light of the specification.
Defendant argues that the specification discloses that “off centered” must produce the desired
airflow. But the specification expressly provides that “...while a desired airflow can be created
with an off-centered blade assembly and a regularly configured or symmetrical bottom surface,
the desired flow can be enhanced by, and even independently created by, a bottom surface which
is irregular or non-symmetrical in configuration.” (4:19-24) Thus, contrary to defendant’s
position, the off-centered blade assembly need not create the desired airflow in and of itself.
Thus, it is not proper to read such a limitation into the claim language.
Having concluded that the patentee defined the term in the patent, the extrinsic evidence
relied on by defendant need not be considered by the Court. See, e.g., Martek Biosciences, 579
F.3d at 1382.
2. “not centered relative to the side wall at height of the blade assembly”
Plaintiff’s proposed construction: “not positioned on the centroid of the area defined by
the side wall at the height of the blade assembly”
Defendant’s proposed construction: “sufficiently off-center with respect to side wall at
the height of the blade assembly to create a flow pattern where the up-flow of ingredients occurs
only over a portion of the circumference of the blades and an uninterrupted down flow through
the blades will occur around the remaining portion of the circumference
The Court’s construction: not positioned on the centroid of the area defined by the side
wall at the height of the blade assembly
The parties make no arguments separate from those raised above. Accordingly, the Court
will construe the “not centered” terms consistently throughout the various claims in the ’004

9

Patent. See, e.g., Callicrate v. Wadsworth Mfg., Inc., 427 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
3. “bottom surface having a periphery”
Plaintiff’s proposed construction: plain and ordinary meaning; or, alternatively,
“container’s interior bottom surface having a periphery”
Defendant’s proposed construction: “bottom surface having a periphery defined by
the intersection of the upper surface of the bottom wall and the interior surface of the side
walls and which includes a curved area having a radius of curvature that generally
approximates the curvature of the circle that the tips of the blades transcribe while rotating”
The Court’s construction: “container’s interior bottom surface having a periphery”
Defendant argues that there are two essential characteristics of the “periphery” claim
limitation. First, the bottom surface periphery is limited to the internal geometry of the
container, which defendant defines as “the intersection of the side walls and the bottom surface.”
Second, the bottom surface periphery must include a “curved area that approximates the radius
of the curvature transcribed by the spinning blades.”
In response, plaintiff argues that the claim term should be given its plain and ordinary
meaning. To the extent construction is necessary, plaintiff argues that the Court should define
the term to mean “container’s interior bottom surface having a periphery.” In other words,
plaintiff does not dispute that the claim is directed at the interior–as opposed to the exterior–
periphery. Plaintiff disputes, however, that the claim includes the “curved area” language
suggested by defendant. According to plaintiff, defendant is attempting to import a limitation
from exemplary embodiments.
Upon review, the Court accepts plaintiff’s alternative proposed construction. The parties

10

do not dispute that the claim is directed at the interior bottom surface. The Court finds however,
that limiting the terms to the “plain and ordinary” meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute.
As defendant points out, blender containers often have interior and exterior bottom peripheries
that do not align. Thus, the plain and ordinary meaning will not suffice. Defendant points out
that during prosecution, the Patent Office issued a final office action rejecting plaintiff’s patent
claims based on the Walter patent, which described a container periphery with only one line of
symmetry. In response, plaintiff appealed the examiner’s final action and noted that the
examiner improperly relied on the bottom periphery of the exterior (as opposed to the interior)
walls in Walter. The argument overcame the Walter rejection. Because this Court can look to
the prosecution history in order to “inform” the meaning of the claims, the Court finds that the
prosecution history confirms that the meaning of the claim term is “container’s interior bottom
surface having a periphery.” Defendant’s alternative proposal that the bottom surface is “defined
by the intersection of the upper surface of the bottom wall and the interior surface of the side
walls” is needlessly confusing and convoluted and adds nothing to the meaning of the term that
is not already encompassed by simply noting that “periphery” refers to the “interior” bottom
surface.
The Court also rejects defendant’s proposed construction that the bottom surface
periphery must include a “curved area that approximates the radius of the curvature transcribed
by the spinning blades.” Defendant argues that the provisional application contained the
following language:
It should be noted that a common feature of all of these configurations is the curved area
27 on the side of bottom surface 16.... In fact, as can be observed, the radius of
curvature of area 27 generally approximates the curvature of the circle that the tips of
blades 21 transcribe when rotating.
11

(Provisional Application at 5:27-31)(emphasis added). Notably, this language is not contained in
the ’004 Patent. Rather, the language was amended in 2006 such that the specification for the
’004 Patent reads:
It should be noted that a common feature of all of these configurations is the side wall on
the side of bottom surface 16 adjacent to blade assembly 20. Side wall 27 is shown as
being curved having a radius of curvature that generally approximates the curvature of
the circle that the tips of blades 21 transcribe when rotating.
Thus, in the patent that was issued and is currently before the Court for construction, the
preferred embodiments are described as having a side wall that is curved and not a curved side of
the bottom surface. Defendant argues that if “Vita-Mix wants the asserted claims to benefit from
the original 2001 priority date, the original written description should govern the Court’s claim
construction. Alternatively, if Vita-Mix wants the amended description to govern claim
construction, the asserted claims must be limited to the August 8, 2006 amendment date as the
priority date.” Defendant, however, cites no law to this Court which would require or allow the
Court to construe the claims of an issued patent based on language contained in a provisional
application where the parties appear to dispute whether the claim limitation is the same.2 Absent
some citation by the parties, the Court declines to do so in this case.
Moreover, defendant acknowledges that “Vita-Mix relies exclusively on the language
that its lawyers altered in 2006 to make the curved area appear optional rather than essential.
This strategic amendment does not reflect the original character of the claimed invention.” (Doc.

2

The Court is aware that it is permitted to consider the prosecution
history of parent patents where the claim terms are the same.
Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1349
(Fed. Cir. 2004). Notably, however, and as set forth more fully
herein, defendant in no way concedes that the “side wall”
amendment is not “new matter.”
12

43 at 12). Based on this statement alone, the Court finds that it cannot accept defendant’s
proposed claim construction. Defendant asks the Court to impart a “curvature” limitation in
construing
“bottom surface having a periphery,” yet acknowledges that the “curved area” “appears”
optional in the language set forth in the ’004 Patent.
It appears that defendant is asking the Court to consider the language in the provisional
application while still maintaining an argument that the language constitutes new matter and,
therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to the priority date of the provisional application. The Court
notes, however, that claim construction is not the proper vehicle to address the issue of priority
date. The Court previously allowed defendant to file an early summary judgment motion
addressing priority date and defendant failed to raise this issue in that motion.
Because the intrinsic evidence wholly fails to support defendant’s proposed construction,
and because plaintiff’s proposed construction is supported by the intrinsic evidence, the Court
declines to consider the extrinsic evidence relied on by defendant.
4. “bottom surface that is at least partially sloped”
Plaintiff’s proposed construction: plain and ordinary meaning; or, alternatively, “bottom
surface that includes a sloped portion but that may also include other non-sloped portions”
Defendant’s proposed construction: “bottom surface that has some regions that are
inclined at an angle relative to the normal plane such that the distance between each blade and
the bottom surface will vary as the blades rotate”
The Court’s construction: plain and ordinary meaning
Defendant argues that this term, as well as a number of other terms requiring that the

13

bottom surface be sloped in some fashion, should be construed to include a limitation that the
surface is inclined “at an angle relative to the normal plane such that the distance between each
blade and the bottom surface will vary as the blades rotate.” According to defendant, the varying
distance between the blades and the bottom surface contributes to the nonuniform flow described
in the invention. Defendant claims that the variation in distance is not described as a possible or
preferred outcome. Rather, according to defendant, it is a “necessary characteristic” needed to
enhance the flow pattern.
Defendant notes that the extrinsic evidence is consistent with its construction of this
claim. Defendant’s expert report provides as follows:
The ’004 patent’s description of the sloped bottom feature does not say that sometimes
the sloping will result in this variation of distances. It states that “as a result” of the
sloped bottom surface, that distance variation is created. Therefore, a person of ordinary
skill in the art of blender engineering and design, reading the ’004 patent claims within
the context of the ’004 patent as a whole, would understand that when the claims
incorporate the sloped bottom feature, the recited sloping refers to a slope that will create
the changing distances as explained in the ’004 patent.
Thus, according to defendant, its expert confirms that the ’004 Patent requires that the
slope create a varying blade distance as required under defendant’s proposed construction.
In response, plaintiff argues that the “sloped” terms should be given their plain and
ordinary. According to plaintiff, these words are easily understood by lay judges. Plaintiff
argues that the ’004 Patent claim language, specification, and file wrapper simply does not
contain the limitation suggested by defendant. Plaintiff argues that to the extent any construction
is necessary, the Court should construe the phrase “bottom surface that is at least partially
sloped” to mean “a bottom surface that includes a sloped portion but that may also include other
non-sloped portions.” Plaintiff claims that the patent examiner used this definition multiple

14

times throughout the prosecution of the ’004 Patent. Plaintiff also argues that defendant’s
construction of these terms improperly imports a limitation from a preferred embodiment. The
preferred embodiment, however, is only one way in which the patentee envisioned that the
invention could be practiced. Plaintiff notes that defendant fails to point to any statement that
demonstrates an intent on the part of the patentee to limit the invention.
Plaintiff further points out that defendant’s construction does not specify the orientation
of the axis of rotation of the blade assembly. As such, under defendant’s proposed construction,
the blender jar could have a completely flat bottom surface, which contradicts any person’s
understanding of the term “sloped.” Plaintiff points out that defendant’s own expert
acknowledges that a blender jar with a completely flat bottom surface would satisfy defendant’s
proposed claim construction.3
In response, defendant argues that the specification indicates that the only way a sloped
bottom surface could contribute to the desired flow pattern is if a varying distance between the
blades and the bottom surface exists as the blades rotate. Defendant also argues that the patentee
acted as a lexicographer in defining certain “sloped” terms. Defendant notes the following:
An additional feature which contributes to the nonuniform flow is the fact that in the
preferred embodiment, bottom surface 16 is inclined at an angle A relative to the plane
normal to the axis of rotation of blade assembly 20. That is, bottom surface 16 is not
horizontal and does not intersect shaft 22 of blade assembly at a right angle....
Thus, bottom surface 16 slopes downwardly at angle A from the location of blade
assembly 20 toward the side of container 15 furthest away from blade assembly 20. That
is, bottom surface 16 is the lowest at the area of the largest blade clearance 26.

3

In addition, plaintiff argues that defendant does not seek any
construction for the term “at least partially sloped bottom surface,”
which results in an anomaly when interpreting the dependent
claims.
15

Upon review, the Court finds that the “sloped” terms should be given their plain and
ordinary meaning. In essence, plaintiff argues that defendant disavowed the plain and ordinary
meaning of “sloped” and, instead, intended “sloped” to require a varying distance between the
blade and the bottom during blade rotation.
“Disavowal requires that ‘the specification or prosecution history make clear that the
invention does not include a particular feature.” The Federal Circuit has expressly rejected the
contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be
construed as being limited to that embodiment.” Hill-Rom Services, Inc. V. Stryker Corp., 755
F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(citations and quotations omitted). “[E]ven when the
specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read
restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the scope using words
or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.” Id.
Here, defendant argues that the patentee acted as a lexicographer and expressly defined
the relevant term. The language defendant points to, however, demonstrates that the patentee is
describing the preferred embodiment. (“An additional feature which contributes to the
nonuniform flow is the fact that in the preferred embodiment bottom surface....”).4
And, “it is not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a
particular limitation to limit a claim term beyond its ordinary meaning.” Aria Diagnostics, Inc.
v. Sequenon, Inc., 726 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2013)(citations and quotations omitted). Defendant

4

This is in direct contrast to the patentee’s language used in
connection with the term “not centered,” wherein the patentee
indicated that “[t]he container of the present invention” includes a
blade assembly that is not centered” and went on to define the term
“not centered.”
16

points to no “words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction” such that the claims must
be interpreted as defendant suggests.
Here, defendant points to language describing only the preferred embodiment. The Court
will not import a limitation from the preferred embodiment where the claims in the patent are not
so limited and the preferred embodiment describes a number of factors singly and in
combination that contribute to the enhanced flow. Moreover, as plaintiff notes, defendant’s
proposed construction would result in entirely flat bottom surfaces meeting the definition of
“sloped.5” Defendant points to nothing in the prosecution history suggesting that the “sloped”
terms should be limited in the way defendant suggests. For these reasons, the Court rejects
defendant’s proposed construction and, instead, concludes that the “sloped” terms should be
given their plain and ordinary meaning.
5. “at least partially sloped bottom”
Plaintiff’s proposed construction: plain and ordinary meaning; or, alternatively, “bottom
surface that includes a sloped portion but that may also include other non-sloped portions”
Defendant’s proposed construction: None
The Court’s construction: plain and ordinary meaning
The parties make no arguments separate from those raised above. Accordingly, the Court
will construe the “sloped” terms consistently throughout the various claims in the ’004 Patent.
See, e.g., Callicrate v. Wadsworth Mfg., Inc., 427 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

5

Defendant notes that it need not address whether the bottom
surface “can or cannot be a flat, horizontal surface.” Alternatively,
the Court could simply add additional language to confirm that the
bottom is not horizontal.
17

6. “at least a portion of the bottom surface is sloped downwardly from a side toward the
blade assembly”
Plaintiff’s proposed construction: plain and ordinary meaning
Defendant’s proposed construction: “some regions of the bottom surface are inclined
downwardly from a side toward the blade assembly at an angle relative to the normal place such
that the distance between each blade and the bottom surface will vary as the blades rotate”
The Court’s construction: plain and ordinary meaning
The parties make no arguments separate from those raised above. Accordingly, the Court
will construe the “sloped” terms consistently throughout the various claims in the ’004 Patent.
See, e.g., Callicrate v. Wadsworth Mfg., Inc., 427 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
7. “bottom surface that is sloped”
Plaintiff’s proposed construction: plain and ordinary meaning
Defendant’s proposed construction: “some regions of the bottom surface are included at
an angle relative to the normal place such that the distance between each blade and the bottom
surface will vary as the blades rotate”
The Court’s construction: plain and ordinary meaning
The parties make no arguments separate from those raised above. Accordingly, the Court
will construe the “sloped” terms consistently throughout the various claims in the ’004 Patent.
See, e.g., Callicrate v. Wadsworth Mfg., Inc., 427 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court construes the disputed claims as set forth herein.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Patricia A. Gaughan
PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN
United States District Judge
Dated: 5/20/16

19