Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation v. Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. et al

Filing 51

DECISION CONSTRUING CLAIMS OF PATENTS IN SUIT; CONFERENCE CALL TO BE SET IN SEPARATE ENTRY. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 12/28/2015. (jdf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

BALL METAL BEVERAGE
CONTAINER CORP.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CROWN PACKAGING
TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

:
:
Case No. 3:12-cv-33
:

and

DISTRICT JUDGE WALTER H. RICE

CROWN CORK & SEAL USA,
INC.,
Defendants.

:
:

DECISION CONSTRUING CLAIMS OF PATENTS IN SUIT;
CONFERENCE CALL TO BE SET IN SEPARATE ENTRY

On February 2, 2012, Plaintiff Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. (“Ball”),
filed this declaratory judgment action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 against
Defendants Crown Packaging Technology, Inc., and Crown Cork & Seal, USA, Inc.
(collectively, “Crown”), seeking a declaration of non-infringement of two patents
held by Crown, as well as the patents’ invalidity, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103
and 112. Doc. #1. Crown filed an Answer on April 17, 2012 (Doc. #12), and an
Amended Answer on July 25, 2012 (Doc. #16), asserting counterclaims of
infringement. The Court has original jurisdiction over patent disputes pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1338(a) and federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331.

Pending before the Court are the parties’ claim construction briefs, filed in
accordance with S.D. Ohio Pat. R. 105.4. The Court will first present a brief
overview of the factual and procedural background of this case, before setting
forth the legal standards applicable to claim construction. The Court will then
consider the parties’ arguments while construing the individual claim terms
presented in the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Doc. #18).
I.

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The parties are competitors who manufacture and sell metal beverage can

components. Crown’s two patents in question, U.S. Patent No. 6,848,875 (“the
‘875 Patent” or “Patent ‘875”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,935,826 (“the ‘826 Patent”
or “Patent ‘826”), describe a can end and process for securing the can end to the
bodies of beer and soft drink cans by a “seaming” method. The patents provide a
significant savings over prior can ends in the industry with their novel shape and
seaming process, which result in strongly secured can ends that use less metal and
thinner can bodies. The use of less metal results in significant savings over prior
can designs and seaming methods.
A.

The Parties’ Previous Litigation
The ‘875 Patent and the ‘826 Patent were the subject of a previous patent

infringement suit brought by Crown against Ball in this Court, filed on August 18,
2005. See Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. and Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc.
2

v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation, Case No. 3:05-cv-00281
(hereinafter, “Crown v. Ball”). In Crown v. Ball, Crown alleged that Ball’s CDL+
can end and method of seaming the CDL+ can end infringed its patents. The
Court originally granted summary judgment in Ball’s favor, ruling that Crown’s
patents were invalid for violating the written description requirement, and that the
patents were invalid as anticipated by a foreign patent. See Case No. 3:05-cv00281 at Doc. #101. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded,
finding the written description to be adequate and that a genuine issue of material
fact existed as to anticipation. Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Ball Metal Beverage
Container Corp., 635 F.3d 1373, 1383-84 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
After remand, the parties again filed for summary judgment, which the Court
granted in Ball’s favor on the basis of non-infringement. See Case No. 3:05-cv00281 at Doc. #123. The Court found that Crown had disclaimed a broad
interpretation of “deformed” during the prosecution of its patents, a term that the
Court had construed as “to become substantially cylindrical,” in reference to the
bending of the can ends during the seaming process that attached the can ends to
the can bodies. Crown’s patents required can ends to be bent between 30° and
60° during the seaming process, resulting in their being “deformed.” The Court
concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Ball’s
CDL+ can end walls were bent more than 10°, the industry standard, and that
they could not, therefore, be “deformed” in a manner that could infringe Crown’s
patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed that conclusion after Crown’s appeal. See
3

Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v Ball Metal Beverage Corp., 492 F. App’x. 115 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (per curiam).
B.

The Present Case
On February 1, 2012, Ball brought this non-infringement action against

Crown, requesting a declaratory judgment stating that two of its newer can ends
do not infringe either of the Crown patents at issue in Crown v. Ball. Doc. #1 at
5-9. Ball also alleged that Crown’s patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102,
103 and 112. Id. The Complaint states that, after the close of discovery in
Crown v. Ball, but before the entry of the Court’s summary judgment decision, Ball
began to sell two other can ends: 1) the CDL-W can end, used for beer cans, and
2) the New CDL+, a modified version of the CDL+ can end that was the focus of
Crown’s allegation of infringement in Crown v. Ball. Doc. #1 at 4. Thus, the
Court’s ultimate conclusion that Ball had not infringed Crown’s patents in Crown v.
Ball applied only to the products Ball manufactured and sold prior to the
introduction of its CDL-W and the New CDL+ can ends, as Ball’s manufacture and
sale of them occurred during the course of that litigation. 1 Id. at 5.
On April 17, 2012, Crown filed an Answer to Ball’s Complaint, asserting
two counterclaims that alleged that Ball’s New CDL+ can ends infringed the ‘826
Patent and the ‘875 Patent. Doc. #12. Ball filed an Answer on May 11, 2012,

1

As the Crown v. Ball case drew to a close, Crown filed a supplemental
memorandum suggesting that Ball’s new can ends also infringed its patents. See
Case # 3:05-cv-281 at Doc. #121.
4

denying that its New CDL+ can ends infringed Crown’s patents. Doc. #14. On
July 25, 2012, Crown filed an Amended Answer and Counterclaims, further
asserting that Ball’s CDL-W can ends infringed the ‘826 Patent and the ‘875
Patent. Doc. #16. On August 13, 2012, Ball filed another Answer, denying that
its CDL-W can ends infringed Crown’s patents. Doc. #17.
In accordance with S.D. Ohio Pat. R. 105.4, the parties filed Claim
Construction Briefs on March 15, 2013, and, on April 19, 2013, the parties filed
Response Briefs. Doc. #22, Doc. #23, Doc. #28, Doc. #29. On October 22,
2013, the Court held a Markman hearing, during which the parties presented oral
arguments on the construction of the disputed claim terms. Doc. #39. On
December 20, 2013, the Court ordered the parties to file simultaneous
memoranda, addressing the issue of whether issue preclusion applied to any of the
currently disputed claim terms that the Court previously had construed in Crown v.
Ball. Doc. #42; see also Doc. #53 at Case No. 3:05-cv-00281 (Markman Order in
Crown v. Ball). The parties filed supplemental claim construction briefs on January
13, 2014, and responses thereto on January 23, 2014. Doc. #43, Doc. #44, Doc.
#46, Doc. #37. All claim construction issues are, therefore, ripe for the Court’s
rulings, which are set forth below after a presentation of the relevant claims from
the patents-in-suit and a discussion of the legal standards applicable to claim
construction.

5

C.

Relevant Claims of the ‘826 Patent
The following claims of the ‘826 Patent are relevant to the present patent

dispute and contain terms to be construed by the Court:
1. A metal can end adapted to be joined to a can body for packaging
beverages under pressure, said can end comprising;
a peripheral cover hook adapted to be seamed onto a can body
so as to form a joint therewith;
a wall extending inwardly and downwardly from the cover
hook; an outwardly concave annular reinforcing bead
extending inwardly and downwardly from the wall;
and a central panel supported by and extending inwardly from
the reinforcing bead;
wherein, prior to being joined to said can body:
(i) the location at which said wall extends from said peripheral
cover hook defines a first point,
(ii) the location at which said reinforcing bead extends from said
wall defines a second point, and
(iii) a line extending between the first point and the second
point is inclined to an axis perpendicular to the exterior of
the central panel at an angle of between 30° and 60°.
2. The can end of claim 1, wherein a base of the concave reinforcing
bead is arcuate in cross-section and has a cross-sectional radius of
less than 0.75 mm.
3. The can end of claim 1, wherein the base of the concave reinforcing
bead is approximately semi-circular in cross section.
4. The can end of claim 1, wherein the reinforcing bead comprises an
outer wall that is inclined to said axis at an angle between -15° and
+15°.
5. The can end of claim 1, wherein the reinforcing bead has inner and
outer walls, a lower portion of the outer wall spaced apart from a
lower portion of the inner wall by less than 1.5 mm.
6

***
9. The can end of claim 1, wherein the ratio of the diameter of the
central panel to the diameter of the peripheral cover hook is 80% or
less.
***
13. A metal can end for use in packaging beverages under pressure and
adapted to be joined to a can body by a seaming process so as to
form a double seam therewith using a rotatable chuck comprising first
and second circumferentially extending walls, said first and second
chuck walls forming a juncture therebetween, said can end
comprising;
a peripheral cover hook, said peripheral cover hook comprising a
seaming panel adapted to be formed into a portion of said
double seam during said seaming operation;
a central panel;
a wall extending inwardly and downwardly from said cover hook, a
first portion of said wall extending from said cover hook to a
first point on said wall, said first wall portion adapted to be
deformed during said seaming operation so as to be bent
upwardly around said juncture of said chuck walls at said first
point on said wall, a second portion of said wall extending
from said first point to a second point forming a lowermost end
of said wall, a line extending between said first and second
points being inclined to an axis perpendicular to said central
panel at an angle of between 30° and 60°.
14. The end according to claim 13, further comprising an annular
reinforcing bead connected to said wall at said second point, said
annular reinforcing bead connecting said wall to said central panel.

7

D.

Relevant Claims of the ‘875 Patent
The following claims of the ‘875 Patent are relevant to the present patent

dispute and contain terms to be construed by the Court:
***
13. The method according to claim 1, wherein said chuck second wall is
inclined with respect to an axial centerline of said chuck that
substantially matches said inclination of said can end wall, and
wherein said rotation of said can end during said first seaming
operation is aided by driving contact between said second wall of said
chuck and said inclined wall of said can end.
14. A method of forming a double seam between a can body and a can
end intended for use in packaging a carbonated beverage, said method
comprising the steps of:
a) providing a can end having
(i) a circumferentially extending peripheral cover hook, said
peripheral cover hook comprising a seaming panel to be
formed into a portion of said double seam during a
seaming operation,
(ii) an annular reinforcing bead, and
(iii) a circumferentially extending wall extending from said
seaming panel to said reinforcing bead, said wall
comprising first and second wall portions, said first wall
portion to be formed into another portion of said double
seam during said seaming operation, said first wall
portion extending from said seaming panel to a first
location on said wall and comprising a radiused portion
extending from said seaming panel, said second wall
portion extending from said first wall portion at said first
wall location to a second location on said wall that
forms a transition with said reinforcing bead, whereby
said first and second locations form end points of said
second wall portion, and wherein a straight line
extending between said first and second locations on
8

said wall is inclined between about 20° and about 60°
with respect to an axial centerline of said can end;
b) placing said cover hook of said can end into contact with a
circumferentially extending flange of a can body;
c) providing a rotatable chuck comprising a first circumferentially
extending wall, said chuck first wall being substantially
cylindrical;
d) bringing said chuck into engagement with said can end; and
e) performing said seaming operation by placing one or more
seaming rolls into contact with said peripheral cover hook of
said can end while said can end rotates so as to deform said
seaming panel of said cover hook and said first wall portion
and said can body flange into said double seam, said seaming
operation deforming said first wall portion such that at least a
portion of said first wall portion after seaming is substantially
cylindrical, said first location on said wall after said seaming
operation forming the transition from said substantially
cylindrical wall portion to said second wall portion, said line
between said first and second locations on said wall remaining
inclined between about 20° and about 60° with respect to
said axial centerline after completion of said seaming
operation.
15. The method according to claim 14, wherein during said seaming
operation at least a portion of said can end wall first portion is
reformed by bending upward by an angle of at least about 16°.
16. The method according to claim 14, wherein said line between said
first and second locations on said wall of said can end is inclined
between about 30° and about 50° with respect to an axial centerline
of said can end prior to performing said seaming operation.
***
18. The method according to claim 14, wherein said line between said
first and second locations on said second wall of said can end is
inclined between about 40° and about 45° with respect to an axial
centerline of said can end.
***
9

24. The method according to claim 14, wherein said chuck further
comprises a second chuck wall depending from said substantially
cylindrical first chuck wall, said second chuck wall not being
substantially cylindrical whereby said first and second chuck walls
form a juncture therebetween, and wherein the step of bringing said
chuck into engagement with said can end comprises bringing said
chuck wall juncture into engagement with said can end wall proximate
said first location on said can end wall.
25. The method according to claim 24, wherein the step of performing
said seaming operation further comprises bending said first wall
portion of said can end upwardly around said chuck wall juncture so
as to permanently deform said first wall portion.
***
28. The method according to claim 14, wherein said line between the first
and second locations on said second wall remains inclined between
about 30° and about 50° after seaming.
29. The method according to claim 14, wherein said line between the first
and second locations on said second wall remains inclined between
about 40° and about 45° after seaming.
***
32. A method of forming a double seam between a can body and a can
end intended for use in packaging a carbonated beverage, said method
comprising the steps of:
a) providing a can end having
(i) a circumferentially extending peripheral cover hook, said
peripheral cover hook comprising a seaming panel to be
formed into a portion of said double seam during a
seaming operation and
(ii) a circumferentially extending wall comprising first and
second portion, said first wall portion to be formed into
another portion of said double seam during said seaming
operation, said first wall portion extending from said
seaming panel to a first location on said wall and
comprising a radiused portion extending from said
seaming panel, said second wall portion extending from
said first wall portion at said first wall location on said
10

wall to a second location on said wall, whereby said first
and second locations form end points of said second
wall portion, said second wall location being the
lowermost point of said wall, and wherein a straight line
extending between said first and second locations on
said wall is inclined between about 20° and about 60°
with respect to an axial centerline of said can end;
b) placing said cover hook of said can end into contact with a
circumferentially extending flange of a can body;
c) providing a rotatable chuck comprising a first circumferentially
extending wall, said first chuck wall being substantially
cylindrical;
d) bringing said chuck into engagement with said can end; and
e) performing said seaming operation by placing one or more
seaming rolls into contact with said peripheral cover hook of
said can end so as to deform said seaming panel of said cover
hook and said first wall portion and said can body flange into
said double seam, said first portion of said can end wall being
pressed against said chuck first wall so that at least a portion
of said first portion of said can end wall is bent upward
through an angle of at least about 16°, said first location on
said wall after said seaming operation forming the transition
from said double seam to said second wall portion, said line
between said first and second locations remaining inclined
between about 20° and about 60° with respect to said axial
centerline.
***
45. The method according to claim 32, wherein the can end includes a
reinforcing bead extending radially inward from said lowermost point
of said second portion of the wall.
***
50. A method of forming a double seam between a can body and a can
end intended for use in packaging a carbonated beverage, said method
comprising the steps of:
a) providing a can end having
11

(i) a circumferentially extending peripheral cover hook, said
peripheral cover hook comprising a seaming panel to be
formed into a portion of said double seam during a
seaming operation,
(ii) an annular reinforcing bead, and
(iii) a circumferentially extending wall extending from said
seaming panel to said reinforcing bead, said wall and
said reinforcing bead forming a transition therebetween;
b) placing said cover hook of said can end into contact with a
circumferentially extending flange of a can body;
c) providing a rotatable chuck comprising first and second
circumferentially extending walls, said second chuck wall
depending from said first chuck wall so as to form a juncture
therebetween;
d) bringing said chuck into engagement with said can end; and
e) performing said seaming operation by placing one or more
seaming rolls into contact with said peripheral cover hook of
said can end while said can end rotates so as to deform said
seaming panel of said cover hook and to bend a portion of said
can end wall upwardly around said juncture of said chuck walls
at a first location on said can end wall, a straight line
extending from said first location on said can end wall to said
transition between said can end wall and said reinforcing bead
inclined between about 20° and about 60° with respect to
said axial centerline both before and after said seaming
operation.
***
52. The method according to claim 50, wherein said line extending from
said first location to said transition is inclined between about 30° and
about 50° with respect to said axial centerline of said can end both
before and after performing said seaming operation.
***
54. The method according to claim 50, wherein said line extending from
said first location to said transition is inclined between about 40° and
about 45° with respect to said axial centerline of said can end both
12

before and after performing said seaming operation.
***
58. The method according to claim 50, wherein said first wall of said
chuck is oriented so as to be inclined with respect to an axial
centerline of said chuck by no more than about 4°.
59. The method according to claim 50, wherein said first wall of said
chuck is substantially cylindrical.
II.

APPLICABLE LAW – CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Although the ultimate issue of patent infringement is a question of fact, the

preliminary construction of the scope and meaning of disputed claim terms is a
question of law. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 385-88
(1996). The first step of claim construction requires an examination of “the words
of the claims themselves, both asserted and nonasserted, to define the scope of
the patented invention.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,
1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Words of the claim are presumed to carry their ordinary
and customary meaning. Id.; see also Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco
Corp., 175 F.3d 985 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (describing the “heavy presumption in favor
of the ordinary meaning of claim language”). The Federal Circuit has emphasized
that “the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the
term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of
the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application,” as
“patents are addressed to [such persons] and intended to be read by others of skill
in the pertinent art.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir.
13

2005) (citing Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d
1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116,
1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Thus, “[t]he inquiry into how a person of ordinary skill in
the art understands a claim term provides an objective baseline from which to
begin claim interpretation.” Id.
When claim terms are easily understood, even by a layperson, claim
construction “involves little more than the application of the widely accepted
meaning of commonly understood words.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. However,
“the meaning of a claim term as understood by persons of skill in the art is often
not immediately apparent,” due to the technical subject matter of the patent or the
patentee’s idiosyncratic use of terminology. Id. In such cases, the meaning of the
claim language must be construed by examining sources that include “the words of
the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history,
and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of
technical terms, and the state of the art.” Id. (quoting Innova, 381 F.3d at 1116).
The Federal Circuit prioritizes the use of intrinsic evidence in claim construction.
Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582 (“It is well-settled that, in interpreting an asserted
claim, the court should look first to the intrinsic evidence of record, i.e., the patent
itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution
history,” which comprises “the most significant source of the legally operative
meaning of disputed claim language”). When consulting the intrinsic evidence,
“the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular
14

claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582). A
court may compare the use of both disputed and undisputed claim terms to
construe a disputed term’s meaning to a person of skill in the art. Id. “Because
claim terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent, the usage of a
term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other
claims.” Id.
Another canon of construction, claim differentiation, derives from the
comparison of claim terms: “the presence of a dependent claim that adds a
particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not
present in the independent claim.” Id. (citing Liebel–Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Under the doctrine of claim differentiation,
there is a general presumption that “each claim in a patent has a different scope.”
Versa Corp. v. Ag-Bag Int’l Ltd., 392 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting
Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F. 3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
There are “two considerations [that] generally govern this claim construction tool
when applied to two independent claims: (1) claim differentiation takes on
relevance in the context of a claim construction that would render additional, or
different, language in another independent claim superfluous; and (2) claim
differentiation ‘cannot broaden claims beyond their correct scope.’”
In addition to the claim terms, there is the specification, which “contains a
written description of the invention which must be clear and complete enough to
enable those of ordinary skill in the art to make and use it.” Vitronics, 90 F.3d at
15

1582. Thus, “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.” Id.; see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (observing that both the
Federal Circuit “and its predecessors have long emphasized the importance of the
specification in claim construction”). For example, examining the specification
“may assist in resolving ambiguity where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of
the words used in the claims lack[s] sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the
claim to be ascertained from the words alone.” Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North Am.
Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The specification is particularly
relevant when the patentee acts as his or her own lexicographer, in which case
“the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the
patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess.” Id. at 1316
(citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir.
2002)). There is also the possibility that “the specification may reveal an
intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor. In that
instance as well, the inventor has dictated the correct claim scope, and the
inventor's intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive.”
Id. (citing SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d
1337, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
Similarly, the intrinsic evidence of 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
16

prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.”
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582-83)). “Thus, the
prosecution history (or file wrapper) limits the interpretation of claims so as to
exclude any interpretation that may have been disclaimed or disavowed during
prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance.” Standard Oil Co. v. Am.
Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). However, because the
prosecution history reflects the “negotiation” between the patentee and the patent
examiner that precedes the grant, the Federal Circuit has cautioned that the
prosecution history “often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less
useful for claim construction purposes.” Id.
Although subordinate to intrinsic evidence, the Federal Circuit has “also
authorized district courts to rely on extrinsic evidence, which ‘consists of all
evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and
inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1317 (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed.
Cir. 1995)). “This evidence may be helpful to explain scientific principles, the
meaning of technical terms, and terms of art that appear in the patent and
prosecution history. Extrinsic evidence may demonstrate the state of the prior art
at the time of the invention.” Markman, 52 F.3d at 980.

17

III.

CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIMS
As mentioned in the recitation of the procedural history of this case, supra,

Section I.A., the parties previously litigated an infringement case in this Court that
required construction of a number of patent terms that the parties have again
asked the Court to construe. As a preliminary matter, the Court will address the
issue of issue preclusion and its application to construction of claims in this case.
“Issue preclusion . . . bars ‘successive litigation of an issue of fact or law
actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior
judgment,’ even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim.” Taylor v.
Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008) (quoting New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S.
742 (2001)). The Federal Circuit is “generally guided by regional circuit precedent”
on issue preclusion, but applies its “own precedent to those aspects of such a
determination that involve substantive issues of patent law.” Ohio Willow Wood
Co. v. Alps South, LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Sixth Circuit
has held that issue preclusion applies when: “(1) the issue in the subsequent
litigation is identical to that resolved in the earlier litigation, (2) the issue was
actually litigated and decided in the prior action, (3) the resolution of the issue was
necessary and essential to a judgment on the merits in the prior litigation, (4) the
party to be estopped was a party to the prior litigation (or in privity with such a
party), and (5) the party to be estopped had a full and fair opportunity to litigate
the issue.” Wolfe v. Perry, 412 F.3d 707, 716 (6th Cir. 2005).

18

Considering the foregoing factors in the particular circumstances of this
case, it is clear that issue preclusion would only apply to a disputed issue of claim
construction that “was necessary and essential to the judgment on the merits in
the prior litigation” between Ball and Crown. Id. This requires revisiting the ultimate
issue that led the Court to grant summary judgment in Ball’s favor in Crown v. Ball,
where it reasoned as follows:
Initially, Ball argues that the CDL + can end does not infringe upon
Plaintiffs' can ends, because Plaintiffs' can end is not “deformed,” as
that term is used in Claim 13 of the ′826 patent and Claim 50 of the
′875 patent. This argument raises the question of claim construction
and whether Plaintiffs disclaimed a broad reading of “deformed”
during the prosecution of the patents-in-suit. During claim
construction, this Court noted that, through the prosecution of the
′826 and ′875 patents, the Plaintiffs had disclaimed a broad
interpretation of “deformed,” in order to overcome prior art. The Court
interpreted “deformed” to mean “to become substantially cylindrical.”
In reaching that conclusion, the Court rejected Plaintiffs' proposed
construction of the term, as meaning “to have its shape altered.” In
rejecting that proposed construction, the Court noted that the
Plaintiffs had disclaimed such during the prosecution of the ′826 and
′875 patents.
...
In sum, Plaintiffs do not dispute that they disclaimed a broad
interpretation to the word the word “deformed,” as used in the ′826
and ′875 patents, during the prosecution of those patents. Indeed,
Plaintiffs do not dispute that conventional thinking in the can industry
is that a can end should be bent no more than 10° and have stated
that their can end walls must be bent 30° to 60°. The Court has
concluded that the evidence fails to raise a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether the CDL + can end walls are bent more than 10°
during the seaming process and that, therefore, they are not
“deformed.” As a consequence, CDL + cans do not infringe on those
claimed by Crown in the ′826 and ′875 patents.
Crown v. Ball., Case No. 3:05-cv-00281, Doc. #123 at 11-14 (citations omitted).
19

The foregoing analysis makes it clear that the only issue of claim
construction that was necessary and essential to the final judgment in Ball v.
Crown concerned the construction of “deformed” as “to become substantially
cylindrical,” as the term “deformed” was used in Claim 13 of the ′826 Patent and
Claim 50 of the ′875 Patent. In the construction of claims set forth below, the
Court construes a phrase from Claim 13 of the ‘826 patent that contains
“deformed,” but specifically adheres to its prior construction of same. Infra,
Section III.A.2. Although this is the only term to be construed that, based on
principles of issue preclusion, cannot be revisited by the Court, the claim
construction below largely incorporates the Court’s prior construction of patent
terms from Crown v. Ball. As discussed in more detail below, there are some
enlargements of the Court’s prior constructions, but no wholesale revisions.
After a brief discussion setting forth the terms to which the parties have
agreed, the Court will turn to its construction of the disputed claim terms.
A.

Claim Terms Undisputed by the Parties
The parties agreed on the construction of six terms, as presented in their

Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement. Doc. #18. Each of the
stipulated constructions will be discussed in turn. As will be seen, the Court will
adopt some, but not all, of the parties’ agreed constructions.

20

1. “Rotatable chuck”
The parties have agreed to the following construction of the term “rotatable
chuck,” as it is used in claim 13 of Patent ‘826 and claims 14, 32, 45, 50, 58,
and 59 of Patent ‘875: “rotatable attachment to a seamer used to hold the can
end, and against which the double seam is formed.” Doc. #18 at 1. The Court
previously adopted this construction when it construed claim 13 of Patent ‘826 in
Crown v. Ball. Case No. 3:05-cv-00281, Doc. #53 at 11-13. That construction
is consistent with the use of “rotatable chuck” in the claims at issue in the present
case, as claims 14 and 32 of Patent ‘875 describe seaming methods that employ a
rotatable attachment. The Court will, therefore, adopt its previous construction of
“rotatable chuck” as “rotatable attachment to a seamer used to hold the can end,
and against which the double seam is formed.”
As a point of clarification, there are multiple instances in which the claims
refer to the rotatable chuck, or parts of it, as simply “chuck” or “said chuck.” For
example, Claims 58 and 59 of Patent ‘875 also refer to the rotatable chuck when
stating only “chuck” or “said chuck.” Thus, the foregoing construction of
“rotatable chuck” applies to those terms as well.
2. “Deformed during said seaming operation so as to be bent upwardly
around said juncture [of said chuck walls]”
Claim 13 of Patent ‘826 describes the constituent parts of the can end,
including the following description that pertains to the can end wall: “a first portion
21

of said wall extending from said cover hook to a first point on said wall, said first
wall portion adapted to be deformed during said seaming operation so as to be
bent upwardly around said juncture of said chuck walls at said first point on said
wall.” According to the parties, the foregoing italicized phrase should be construed
as: “bent upwardly around the juncture of the chuck and against the first chuck
wall to become substantially cylindrical, with the first wall portion being bent by
more than 10°.” Doc. #18 at 1-2.
In Crown v Ball, the Court analyzed the phrases “to be deformed” and “bent
upwardly around said juncture of said chuck walls” separately. It construed “to be
deformed” as “to become substantially cylindrical.” Case No. 3:05-cv-00281,
Doc. #53 at 29. The Court further construed the phrase “bent upwardly around
said juncture of said chuck walls” to mean “turned upwardly around the juncture of
the walls of the chuck and against the first chuck wall.” Id. at 31. The parties’
proposed construction eschews the previously constructed phrase “turned
upwardly” for “bent upwardly,” reverting to the language of the original claim.
Such a proposal construes nothing. Thus, the Court will reject the parties’
construction to the extent that it uses “bent upwardly,” which merely repeats the
language of the claim, and will adopt its own previous construction of “turned
upwardly.” However, the second part of the parties’ proposed construction is
consistent with the Court’s prior construction, which was based on Crown’s
disclaimer that the first wall portion was bent by 10° or less during patent
prosecution. Id. at 21-29.
22

Furthermore, the Court finds that the parties’ proposed construction “around
the juncture of the chuck and against the first chuck wall,” to be confusing,
because it omits the word “walls.” For some reason, the parties propose
construing the phrase “juncture of the chuck walls” as “juncture of the chuck.”
Given that the word “juncture” suggests a place where things meet, replacing
“chuck walls” with “chuck” leads one to ask: the juncture of the chuck and what?
Thus, the Court cannot accept a construction that omits “walls,” as that word
illustrates that the juncture is on the chuck itself, where two of its walls meet.
The Court will, therefore, adopt a construction that uses the word “walls,” and will
construe the phrase “deformed during said seaming operation so as to be bent
upwardly around said juncture of said chuck walls” in claim 13 of Patent ‘826 as
“turned upwardly around the juncture of the chuck walls and against the first
chuck wall to become substantially cylindrical, with the first wall portion being
bent by more than 10°.”
3. “Bend a portion of said can end wall upwardly around said juncture of
said chuck walls at a first location on said can end wall”
Claim 50 of Patent ‘875 defines a method of forming a double seam between a
can body and a can end. Step (e) requires that the seaming operation, in part,
“bend a portion of said can end wall upwardly around said juncture of said chuck
walls at a first location on said can end wall,” for which the parties propose the
following construction: “bend the portion of said can end wall upwardly around the
juncture of the chuck and against the first chuck wall to become substantially
23

cylindrical, with the portion of said can end wall being bent by more than 10°.”
Doc. #18 at 2. The following quotation places the phrase in its context in the
claim, with the phrase to be construed in italics:
A method of forming a double seam between a can body and a can
end . . . comprising the steps of . . . e) performing said seaming
operation by placing one or more seaming rolls into contact with said
peripheral cover hook of said can end while said can end rotates so as
to deform said seaming panel of said cover hook and to bend a portion
of said can end wall upwardly around said juncture of said chuck
walls at a first location on said can end wall . . . .
In Crown v Ball, the Court construed this phrase together with the phrase
that immediately precedes it, “to deform said seaming panel of said cover hook,”
as “to deform said seaming panel of said cover hook to become substantially
cylindrical and to turn a portion of said can end wall upwardly around the juncture
of the walls of the chuck and against the first chuck wall.” Case No. 3:05-cv00281, Doc. #53 at 42. Once again, Court does not find the omission of “walls”
in the proposed construction helpful in any way, as it obscures the location of the
“juncture.” Otherwise, the Court finds the proposed construction in accord with
its previous construction, as well the parties’ stipulation that the phrase specifies a
minimum 10° threshold to which the portion must be bent.
Accordingly, the Court will construe the language in Claim 50 of Patent ‘875
“to bend a portion of said can end wall upwardly around said juncture of said
chuck walls at a first location on said can end wall,” as the following: “to turn a
portion of said can end wall upwardly around the juncture of the walls of the chuck

24

and against the first chuck wall, with the portion of said can end wall being bent
by more than 10°.”
4. “Seaming panel”
Claim 13 of Patent ‘826 and Claims 14, 32, and 50 of Patent ‘875 contain
the term “seaming panel,” which the parties propose construing as “curved
innermost portion of the peripheral cover hook.” Claim 13 of Patent ‘826 uses the
term “seaming panel” to describe the “peripheral cover hook” as follows: “said
peripheral cover hook comprising a seaming panel adapted to be formed into a
portion of said double seam during said seaming operation . . . .” Claims 14, 32,
and 50 of Patent ‘875 also use the phrase “seaming panel” to describe the
“peripheral cover hook” of the can end, with the only difference being that they
describe “a seaming panel to be formed” instead of “a seaming panel adapted to
be formed.” There is no appreciable difference between the phrases “to be
formed” and “adapted to be formed,” and the parties have not pointed out one that
would preclude a uniform construction of “seaming panel” in those claims.
Claims 14, 32, and 50 of Patent ‘875 also employ “seaming panel” to define
the point at which the “circumferentially extending wall” begins on the can end.
Claim 50 describes part of the can end as having “a circumferentially extending
wall extending from said seaming panel to said reinforcing bead,” and also employs
“seaming panel” when describing its deformation during the seaming process.
Claims 14 and 32 more specifically locate the “seaming panel” as the place where
25

the “first wall portion” of the “circumferentially extending wall” begins, as both
claims describe the “said first wall portion extending from said seaming panel to a
first location on said wall and comprising a radiused portion extending from said
seaming panel.”
As used in these claims, there is no reason not to adopt a uniform
construction of “seaming panel.” The parties propose “curved innermost portion of
the peripheral cover hook.” It is clear from the language of Claim 13 of the ‘826
Patent that the “seaming panel” is at least one portion of the “peripheral cover
hook,” as the claim describes it as “comprising a seaming panel . . . .” It is an
accepted canon of patent construction that “comprising” means “including, but not
limited to.” CIAS, Inc., v. Alliance Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir.
2007). Thus, although Claim 13 only describes one portion of the “peripheral
cover hook,” it is consistent with the open-ended meaning associated with
“comprising” to state, as the parties propose, that it is a “portion” of the
“peripheral cover hook.” The Court also finds the use of the adjective “curved”
consistent with the fact that it is a portion of the “peripheral cover hook,” as well
as the written description of Patent ‘826, which references a “peripheral curl” and
the “curl of the can end.”
Accordingly, the Court adopts the parties’ proposed construction of
“seaming panel,” as the term is used in Claim 13 of Patent ‘826 and Claims 14,
32, and 50 of Patent ‘875, to mean the “curved innermost portion of the
peripheral cover hook.”
26

5. “Annular reinforcing bead”
The parties propose construing “annular reinforcing bead” as the “outwardly
concave, generally ‘U’ shaped, ring-like stiffening channel.” Doc. #23 at 19 n.4. 2
The term “annular reinforcing bead” appears in Claims 1 and 14 of Patent ‘826,
and Claims 1, 14, 40, 44, and 50 of Patent ‘875. The proposed construction
would also apply to the term “reinforcing bead” in Claim 45 of Patent ‘875. The
proposed construction is identical to the Court’s previous construction of “annular
reinforcing bead” in Claim 14 of Patent ‘826 in Crown v. Ball. Case No. 3:05-cv00281, Doc. #53 at 52-53.
The Court accepts the parties proposed construction, and will construe
“annular reinforcing bead” as it is used in Claims 1 and 14 of Patent ‘826, and
Claims 1, 14, 40, 44, and 50 of Patent ‘875, as “outwardly concave, generally ‘U’
shaped, ring-like stiffening channel.”
6. “Juncture therebetween”
The parties propose construing “juncture therebetween,” as used in Claim
13 of Patent ‘826 and Claims 24,25 and 50 of Patent ‘875 as “definable edge
between the walls of the chuck (which is a point in cross-section).” Doc. #23 at
19 n.4. The construction is essentially the same as the Court’s previous

2

The parties did not list “annular reinforcing bead” or “juncture therebetween” as
terms upon which they agreed in their Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
Statement, but informed the Court in their claim construction briefs that they had
later agreed to an identical construction of these terms. Doc. #23 at 19 n.4.
27

construction, with the addition of the clarifying term “of the chuck.” See Case No.
3:05-cv-00281, Doc #53 at 16-18. The Court approves of this clarifying addition,
and adopts the proposed construction of “juncture therebetween” as “definable
edge between the walls of the chuck (which is a point in cross-section).”
IV.

CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
The parties could not agree on a number of terms in the claims of the ‘826

Patent and the ‘875 Patent. The Court will set forth its construction of the
disputed claim terms, after considering the parties’ proposed constructions and
arguments. 3
A.

Can End Wall Terms
Ball identifies three examples of what it calls the Can End Wall Terms: the

term “wall extending inwardly and downwardly” in Claims 1 and 13/14 of Patent
‘826; the term “circumferentially extending wall” in Claims 14, 32/45 and 50 of
Patent ‘875; and the term “circumferentially extending wall extending from said
seaming panel to said reinforcing bead” in Claims 14 and 50 of Patent ‘875.
According to Ball, the same construction should apply to all of these terms
3

Crown originally included the following terms in its list of disputed patent terms
that it wished the Court to construe: “second portion of said wall” in Claim 13/14
of Patent ‘826 and “second wall portion” in Claims 14 and 32/45 of Patent ‘875.
Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Doc. #18 at 3. However, in
Crown’s Claim Construction Brief, it argued that the foregoing terms should not be
construed by the Court. Doc. #22 at 38-40. The Court, therefore, considers
Crown to have withdrawn its request to have the foregoing terms construed, and
will not construe such.
28

because, as used in the claims, they “all refer to the same structure– the can end
wall– and should be construed to mean the same thing.” Doc. #23 at 22. Ball’s
proposed construction of all of the foregoing terms is a “single surface encircling
the center of the can end, which is engaged by a chuck during seaming, extending
from the cover hook to the annular reinforcing bead.” Id.
Crown proposes construing these terms individually. It proposes construing
the term “wall extending inwardly and downwardly” in Claims 1 and 13/14 of
Patent ‘826 as “can end wall extending inwardly and downwardly;” the term
“circumferentially extending wall” in Claims 14, 32, and 50 of Patent ‘875 as “can
end wall encircling the center of the can end”; and the term “circumferentially
extending wall extending from said seaming panel to said reinforcing bead” in
Claims 14 and 50 of Patent ‘875 as “a can end wall encircling the center of the
can end extending from the seaming panel to the reinforcing bead.”
The Court previously construed some of Ball’s “Can End Wall Terms”
together. For example, the Court’s previous constructions of Claim 13 of Patent
‘826 and Claim 50 of Patent ‘875 clarified that the wall to which the terms
referred was the can end wall. See Case No. 3:05-cv-00281, Doc. #53 at 19-20,
38 (construing “a wall extending inwardly and downwardly,” as used in Claim 13
of Patent ‘826, as “a can end wall extending inwardly and downwardly,” and “a
circumferentially extending wall extending from said seaming panel to said
reinforcing bead” in Claim 50 of Patent ‘875 as “a can end wall which is a single
surface encircling the center of the can and extending from the seaming panel to
29

the reinforcing bead”). Ball correctly points out that all of the currently disputed
terms that it groups together as the Can End Wall terms refer to the can end wall.
The Court will, therefore, again construe each term’s use of the word “wall” as
“can end wall.”
In its previous construction, the Court also stated that the term “single
surface” would apply to the use of “can end wall” in Claim 13 of Patent ‘826, as
well as in Claim 50 of Patent ‘875. Id. at 20. That construction resulted from the
Court’s partial adoption of Ball’s proposed construction of can end wall as a “single
distinct surface.” The Court reasoned that “single surface” would help the jury to
differentiate the single can end wall from the multiple chuck walls. Id. at 36.
However, the Court rejected the suggestion of “distinct” because Ball failed to
explain what the can end wall was distinct from. Id. at 37.
Crown’s current proposed constructions would eliminate the “single surface”
construction that the Court previously adopted. According to Crown, “limiting the
‘can end wall’ to a ‘single surface’ is unnecessary.” Doc. #22 at 19. The Court
disagrees. The use of the word “wall” is endemic within the claims, and at times
certain claims employ the word “wall” without specifying whether the usage refers
to the single-surfaced can end walls or the multiple-surfaced chuck walls. Any
construction that demarcates the two meanings will assist the jury. Crown has not
identified a flaw in this reasoning or articulated another reason to discard the
construction of “can end wall” as a “single surface,” other than characterizing the
construction as “unnecessary.” The Court rejects that characterization and
30

maintains its previous construction of “can end wall” as a “single surface” in Claim
13 of Patent ‘826 and Claim 50 of Patent ‘875. Furthermore, to the extent that
Ball proposes applying the construction “single surface” to the other claim terms in
dispute that refer to the “can end wall,” namely, Claim 1 of Patent '826 and
Claims 14 and 32/45 of Patent '875, the Court adopts the proposed construction.
Again, this will help distinguish references of the can end walls in those claims
from those of the chuck walls, which have more than one surface.
Other than the generally applicable construction in each of the disputed
claims of wall as “can end wall” with “a single surface,” however, the Court
believes that the blanket construction that Ball proposes, “single surface encircling
the center of the can end, which is engaged by a chuck during seaming, extending
from the cover hook to the annual reinforcing bead,” simply paints with too wide a
brush. As a general principle of claim construction, a patent’s consistent use of a
particular term allows it to be construed consistently throughout the claims. See
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Because claim
terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent, the usage of a term in
one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims”).
However, Claims 1 and 13 of Patent ‘826 are product claims, whereas the claims
of Patent ‘875 are method claims. The Federal Circuit has cautioned that courts
must “take care to avoid reading process limitations into an apparatus claim,
because the process by which a product is made is irrelevant to the question of
whether that product infringes a pure apparatus claim.” Baldwin Graphic Systems,
31

Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Circ. 2008) (internal citations omitted).
“Despite their similarities, these claims are directed toward different classes of
patentable subject material under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” Id. The foregoing principle
counsels against applying the process-based construction “which is engaged by a
chuck during seaming” to the term “wall extending inwardly and downwardly” in
the product claims of Patent ‘826. Furthermore, the proposed construction,
particularly when read with the “single surface” construction, might suggest that
the entirety of the can end wall is “engaged by a chuck.” This is belied by the fact
that Claim 13 (of Patent ‘826) states that the “first wall portion” of the can end
wall is “adapted to be deformed during [the] seaming operation” and is “bent
upwardly around [the] juncture of [the] chuck walls.” Thus, some portion of the
can end wall must not be engaged by the chuck, to allow for a only portion of the
can end wall to be bent upwardly. For these reasons, the Court rejects “engaged
by the chuck during seaming,” when applied to the can end wall in its entirety, as
Ball proposes, in both the product and the method claims in dispute.
Ball also proposes applying the construction of “extending from the cover
hook to the annular reinforcing bead” to “wall extending inwardly and
downwardly” in Claims 1 and 13/14 of Patent ‘826, “circumferentially extending
wall” in Claims 14, 32/45 and 50 of Patent ‘875, and the term “circumferentially
extending wall extending from said seaming panel to said reinforcing bead” in
Claims 14 and 50 of Patent ‘875. The only explanation that Ball provides for its
proposed construction is that it “substitutes ‘cover hook’ for ‘seaming panel,’ so
32

that the proposed construction can be applied consistently to all of the disputed
claim terms.” 4 Doc. #23 at 45. However, Ball fails to explain why any of the
other elements of the proposed construction should be applied. With regards to
Claim 1 of Patent ‘826, the proposed construction is superfluous. In a list of the
can end’s constituent parts, the claim describes “a wall extending inwardly and
downwardly from the cover hook,” and then, immediately afterwards, “an
outwardly concave annular reinforcing bead extending inwardly and downwardly
from the wall.” Ball’s proposed construction of wall would merely repeat a
description that already exists within the claim. Furthermore, Claim 13 of Patent
‘826 makes no mention of the annual reinforcing bead until dependent Claim 14,
which “further” describes the can end as “comprising an annual reinforcing bead
connected to said wall . . . .” It would be inappropriate to import that “further”
limitation into the claim before it. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. In light of Ball’s
failure to provide any reason to apply its proposed construction of “extending from
the cover hook to the annular reinforcing bead” to the claim terms in dispute, the
Court will decline to do so.

4

In its brief, there is an asterisk after “cover hook,” and Ball asserts in the note
below that this “Court used ‘seaming panel’ instead of ‘cover hook’” in its
Markman Order of the parties’ previous litigation. Id. However, the Court only
employed the exact language of the claim being construed, Claim 50 of Patent
‘875, after rejecting Ball’s proposed construction, whereby Ball might have argued
for any use of “cover hook.” Case No. 3:05-cv-00281, Doc. #53 at 38.
Furthermore, Ball’s proposed construction suggested “cover hook” instead of
“seaming panel.” Id. Because the Court’s ultimate construction defaulted to the
exact language of the claim (“extending from said seaming panel to said reinforcing
bead”), the Court did not use one term “instead of” any other term.
33

With the exception of its proposal that the Court eschew its previous
construction of “single surface,” which the Court has rejected, Crown’s proposals
largely track the Court’s previous constructions in Ball v. Crown. In that case, the
Court construed “a circumferentially extending wall” in Claim 50 of Patent ‘875 as
“a can end wall encircling the center of the can end,” based on Crown’s proposal
to adopt a dictionary definition of “circumferentially.” No. 3:05-cv-00281, Doc.
#53 at 36-38. Here, Crown proposes applying thi+s construction to claims 14
and 32/45 of Patent ‘875 as well. Given that those claims also use
“circumferentially extending wall,” the Court will adopt that construction for the
aforementioned claims. Ball criticizes Crown’s failure to propose this construction
for all of its Can End Wall Terms. However, the term “circumferentially” does not
appear in Claims 1 of Patent ‘826, and in Claim 13 of that patent, it is used in
reference to the chuck walls. Thus, the Court will not apply that construction to
the disputed terms of Patent ‘826, but will construe “a circumferentially extending
wall” in the disputed claims of Patent ‘875 as “a can end wall encircling the center
of the can end.”
Thus, to summarize its construction of the Can End Wall Terms: the Court
construes “wall extending inwardly and downwardly” in Claims 1 and 13/14 of
Patent ‘826 as “a can end wall which is a single surface;” “circumferentially
extending wall” in claims 14, 32/45 and 50 of Patent ‘875 as “a can end wall
which is a single surface encircling the center of the can end;” and
“circumferentially extending wall extending from said seaming panel to said
34

reinforcing bead” in Claims 14 and 50 of Patent ‘875 as “a can end wall which is a
single surface encircling the center of the can end extending from said seaming
panel to said reinforcing bead.”
1. “First point” and “first location”
Ball believes that Claim 1 and Claim 13 of Patent ‘826 use the term “first
point” to refer to different points on the can end wall, and each usage should,
therefore, be construed separately. Doc. #23 at 25. Ball reads “first point” in
Claim 1 of Patent ‘826 as a reference to “the point at which the peripheral cover
hook terminates and the wall begins.” Id. at 27. Ball would construe Claim 1’s
use of “first point” as the “innermost point (in cross-section) on the end at which
the cover hook terminates.”
Ball sees the use of “first point” in Claim 13 of Patent ‘826 as a reference to
“the location on the wall at which the juncture engages the can end wall and
deforms it during seaming.” Ball believes this use of “first point” in Claim 13 of
Patent ‘826 refers to the same place as the term “first location” in Claims 14, 24,
32/45, 50, 52 and 54 of Patent ‘875 (including “first and second locations” as
stated in that patent’s Claims 18, 28, and 29), and, therefore, both terms should
be construed identically. Ball proposes the following construction for “first point”
in Claim 13 of Patent ‘826 and “first location” in the Patent ‘875 claims: “point (in
cross-section) on the can end wall where the juncture of the two chuck walls

35

engages the can end wall and bends it upwardly around the juncture and deforms
it during the seaming process.”
Ball presents the following argument to support this construction. First, it
notes that although the Court declined to construe “first point” in Claim 13 of
Patent ‘826 in the previous litigation, the Court observed in the Markman Order
that “it is apparent that the first point is where the can end wall is bent upwardly
at the juncture of the two chuck walls. In other words, the first point is where the
can end wall is deformed during the seaming process.” Id. (quoting Case No.
3:05-cv-00281, Doc. #53 at 20-21). According to Ball, “the claim language of the
[Patent ‘875] claims is similar,” and therefore, the Court’s observation is “equally
applicable” to the use of “first location” in those claims. To demonstrate this
similarity, Ball points to the following language in Patent ‘875: “first location on
said wall after said seaming operation forming the transition from said substantially
cylindrical wall portion to said second wall portion” in Claim 14; “said first location
on said wall after said seaming operation forming the transition from said double
seam to said second wall portion” in Claim 32/45; and “bend a portion of said can
end wall upwardly around said juncture of said chuck walls at a first location on
said can end wall” in claim 50. Ball argues that “[a]ll of these claims require the
‘first location’ to be the point on the wall at which the wall is deformed during the
seaming process, similar to the ‘first point’ in claims 13/14 of the ‘826 Patent,”
and they should all, therefore, be construed as it proposes.

36

Conversely, Crown argues that use of “first point” in Claim 1 of Patent ‘826
requires no construction because the language of the claim provides a definition.
Doc. #22 at 26. Furthermore, Crown argues that Ball’s proposed construction,
when appended to the existing definition of “first point” in the claim, would “sow
confusion” because it would read as follows: “the location at which said wall
extends from said peripheral cover hook defines a[n] innermost point (in crosssection) on the end at which the cover hook terminates.” Id. at 27.
Crown also argues that “first point” as used in Claim 13 of Patent ‘826 does not
require construction either, because its location is also defined by the claim
language surrounding it. Id. Furthermore, Crown criticizes Ball’s proposed
construction as an attempt to impose limitations onto the term that are
unsupported by the claim, such as the requirement that the chuck wall “engage”
the can end. Id. at 28. Crown also points out that Ball’s proposed construction in
the parties’ previous litigation did not seek to impose these limitations on the claim
term that it now proposes. Id. at 28-29. Crown levels the same criticisms at
Ball’s proposed construction of “first location” in Patent ‘875, and also points out
that the Court declined to construe the term in the previous case, despite Ball’s
request. Id. at 29.
Initially, it must be stressed that the Claim 1 of Patent ‘826 explicitly defines
“first point.” This is clearly a case where “the context in which a term is used in
the asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d 1303, 1314.
When describing the invention, Claim 1 states in part that, on the can end:
37

. . . prior to being joined to [the] can body: (i) the location at which
said wall extends from said peripheral cover hook defines a first point,
(ii) the location at which said reinforcing bead extends from said wall
defines a second point, and (iii) a line extending between the first
point and the second point is inclined to an axis perpendicular to the
exterior of the central panel at an angle of between 30° and 60°.
(underlining added for emphasis).
Based on the underlined definition above, the Court agrees with Ball’s
observation that the “first point” is the point at which the peripheral cover hook
terminates and the wall begins. There is no indication that the peripheral cover
hook and the can end wall overlap. Rather, as the claim states, the “wall extends
from [the] peripheral cover hook” at that point. Thus, the Court agrees with Ball
that a useful construction would state that the peripheral cover hook terminates at
the first point. A portion of the final part of Ball’s proposed construction
somewhat clarifies that termination: the “innermost point (in cross-section) on the
end at which the cover hook terminates.”
However, the first part of the proposed construction, which refers to an
“innermost point (in cross-section) on the end,” must be rejected for two reasons.
First, the use of “innermost point . . . on the end at which the cover hook
terminates” is not clear, as it suggests that there may be more than one point in
question, or even more than one point at which the cover hook terminates. This is
not so, as the peripheral cover hook terminates at the “first point.” Second, the
reference to the “cross-section” is otherwise foreign to Claim 1. Dependent claims
2 and 3 further define the can end by reference to its “cross-section,” but Claim 1
38

does not rely on that terminology to define the can end. A limitation present in a
dependent claim should not be read into an independent one. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1314. Construing “first point” with a reference to the cross-section would import
that particular reference, reserved otherwise to the dependent claims, into the
independent claim. For these reasons, the Court will not adopt the entirety of
Ball’s proposed construction. However, the Court will incorporate a reference to
the termination of the peripheral cover hook, and will, therefore construe “first
point” in Claim 1 of Patent ‘826 as “the location at which the can end wall
extends from the termination of the peripheral cover hook.”
Additionally, it is clear, as Ball asserts, that Claim 13 of Patent ‘826 also
uses the term “first point” in reference to a different point on the can end wall
than Claim 1. Whereas Claim 1 defined a “first point” where the can end wall
extends from the peripheral cover hook, Claim 13 describes the can end wall, in
part, as having:
a first portion of said wall extending from said cover hook to a first
point on said wall, said first wall portion adapted to be deformed
during said seaming operation so as to be bent upwardly around said
juncture of said chuck walls at said first point on said wall . . . .
(underlining added for emphasis).
Thus, in Claim 13, “first point” marks 1) the extent of the “first portion” of
the can end wall extending from the peripheral cover hook, and 2) the place where
the “first wall portion” is “bent upwardly around” the juncture of the chuck walls.
Because the defined term “first point” in Claim 1 marks the location where the
39

peripheral cover hook ends and the wall begins, as opposed to Claim 13, where it
demarcates the extent of the first portion of the wall, a person skilled in the art
would undoubtedly recognize that “first point” has two distinct meanings in these
claims. The Court, therefore, agrees with Ball that it cannot forgo construing “first
point” in Claim 13, as it did in the prior litigation, where Claim 1 was not at issue.
According to Ball, however, the Court’s construction of “first point” in Claim 13
should also extend to the term “first location,” as that term is used in a number of
claims in Patent ‘875. Ball argues for such a blanket construction because “[a]ll of
these claims require the ‘first location’ to be the point on the wall at which the
wall is deformed during the seaming process, similar to the ‘first point’ in claims
13/14 of the ‘826 Patent.” Ball only quotes three of the nine examples of the use
of “first location” in Patent ‘875 to demonstrate this purported similarity: one of its
two uses in Claim 14, one of its two uses in Claim 32, and one of its two uses in
Claim 50. The Court finds Ball’s demonstration of “similarity” insufficient.
Without an unambiguous clarification of the total identity of the meanings in all of
the claim terms to which Ball proposes applying a blanket construction, the Court
does not believe that the same construction should apply to two terms in two
different patents across such an array of claims.
Furthermore, Ball’s proposed construction, “point (in cross-section) on the
can end wall where the juncture of the two chuck walls engages the can end wall
and bends it upwardly around the juncture and deforms it during the seaming
process,” would, like its proposed construction of Claim 1, invoke the “cross40

section” perspective in a claim that otherwise makes no reference to such a
perspective. The proposed construction must also be rejected because it would
inappropriately import the process described in the claims of Patent ‘875 into the
“first point” of Claim 13 in the ‘826 Patent. Claim 13 itself makes no reference to
the “engagement” of the can end wall by the juncture of the chuck walls. Claim
13 states that the “first point” is where the “first wall portion . . . [is] bent
upwardly around [the] juncture of [the] chuck walls,” but is silent as to the details
of that process. Ball’s proposed construction essentially rephrases a dependent
process claim, Claim 24 of Patent ‘875, as a construction of an independent claim:
“wherein the step of bringing said chuck into engagement with said can end
comprises bringing said chuck wall juncture into engagement with said can end
wall proximate said first location on said can end wall.”
Finally, “first point” and “first location” are not terms of art, but generally
understood terms that depend on the immediate context of the sentence or phrase
they are within for meaning. It is for that reason, for example, that “first point” in
Claim 1 refers to a different location on the can end wall than “first point” in Claim
13. In short, the Court believes that it would be unduly restrictive to construe
“first point” and “first location,” as used across a variety of claims, according to a
single construction.
This conclusion still leaves the issue of the construction of “first point” in
Claim 13. For the reasons just set forth, the Court will not adopt Ball’s proposed
construction. Crown proposes no construction. The Court therefore finds it
41

necessary to provide a construction that eliminates any confusion with the use of
“first point” in Claim 1. Thus, the Court will construe “first point” in Claim 13 of
Patent ‘826 as “a point on the can end wall where the first portion of the can end
wall terminates, where the first wall portion is bent upwardly around the juncture
of the chuck walls, and distinct from the ‘first point’ in Claim 1.”
2. “Second Point,” “Second Location”
Ball also proposes a single construction for the following terms: “second
point” in Claims 1 and 13/14 of Patent ‘826; “second point forming a lowermost
end of said wall” in Claim 13/14 of Patent ‘826; “second location” in claims 16,
18, 28, 29, and 32/45 of Patent ‘875; “second location on said wall that forms a
transition with said reinforcing bead” in Claim 14 of Patent ‘875; and “transition
therebetween” in Claims 50, 52, 54 of Patent ‘875. Ball proposes the following
construction for all of the foregoing terms: “point (in cross-section) on the end
where the can end wall is angularly offset from the annular reinforcing bead.”
In support of its proposed construction, Ball makes several arguments.
Preliminarily, Ball points out that the Court previously construed two of these
terms in the parties’ prior patent dispute: “second point forming a lowermost end
of said wall” in Claims 13/14 of Patent ‘826, which was construed as “a second
point that marks the lowest end of said can end wall”; and “transition
therebetween” (as used the phrase “(iii) a circumferentially extending wall
extending from said seaming panel to said reinforcing bead, said wall and said
42

reinforcing bead forming a transition therebetween”) in Claim 50 of the ’875
Patent, which was construed as “a place between them at which one changes to
the other.” According to Ball, all of the currently disputed terms, including the two
previously construed terms, refer to the “same point at which the can end wall
meets the annular reinforcing bead, and they should be construed similarly.” Ball
points to a disclaimer that Crown made during the prosecution of U.S. Patent No.
8,328,041 (“Patent ‘041”), which Ball claims “shares substantially the same
specification and figures,” to support its proposed construction. During that
prosecution, Crown amended its claims in Patent ‘041 to “recite a can end with a
reinforcing bead that has an outer wall that is angularly offset from the chuck
wall.” Doc. #23-10 at 4; Office Action Reply of 12/22/11. According to Ball, this
is identical to the “second point,” “second location,” or “transition therebetween”
that are currently in dispute, and should, therefore, inform the Court’s current
construction.
Crown rejects Ball’s proposed construction, arguing that the terms in
question require no further construction, and the term “annular reinforcing bead”
should not be imported into claims where it otherwise does not appear. Doc. #22
at 29-30. Crown also argues that the “angularly offset” limitation from Patent
‘041 should not be read onto Patent ‘826 or Patent ‘875 because it appears
nowhere in their claims, and was never argued during their prosecution to
distinguish them from prior art.

43

Ball’s argument for construing all of the disputed terms in question relies on
the premise that they all refer to the identical point on the can end. But there are
genuine distinctions between the functions of Patent ‘826’s “second point” and
Patent ‘875’s “second location.” For example, Claim 1 of Patent ‘826 describes
“a line extending between the first point and the second point [that] is inclined to
an axis perpendicular to the exterior of the central panel at an angle of between
30° and 60°.” Claim 14 also employs “second point” to plot an “angle of
between 30° and 60°.” Patent ‘875, on the other hand, describes “a straight line
extending between said first and second locations on said wall [that] is inclined
between about 20° and about 60° with respect to an axial centerline of said can
end.” Thus, the two patents allow for a 10° difference between the angles
created with Patent ‘826’s “second point” and Patent ‘875’s “second location.” A
uniform construction of these distinct terms would risk obscuring this significant
distinction.
The Court also declines Ball’s proposal to construe the terms in question
based on disclaimers that Crown made in a later patent. In Georgia-Pacific Corp.
v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 195 F.3d 1322, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 1999), an accused
infringer argued that statements made nine months after the issuance of the
patent-in-suit, during the prosecution of a subsequent patent, bound the plaintiff
and should be considered as extrinsic evidence in support of its proposed
construction of an ambiguous claim term. The Federal Circuit rejected that
argument, and stated that in order for the plaintiff “to be bound by the statement
44

made to the PTO in connection with a later prosecution of a different patent, the
statement would have to be one that the examiner relied upon in allowing the
claims in the patent at issue.” Id. at 1333 (citing Mannesmann Demag Corp. v.
Engineered Metal Prods. Co., 793 F.2d 1279, 1284–85 (Fed.Cir.1986)) (emphasis
added). Here, Ball has not demonstrated that the examiner of the ‘826 or ‘875
Patent ever relied on a statement from Crown that the annular reinforcing bead has
to be “angularly offset” from the can end wall.
For these reasons, the Court will examine the disputed terms of each patent
separately. First, the Court believes that Patent ‘826 uses the term “second point”
consistently in Claim 1 and 13. Both claims use the term “second point” in order
to plot a hypothetical line that exists at a 30° to 60° angle to an axis that is
perpendicular to the central panel. This consistent usage of an identical term
supports extending the Court’s previous construction of “second point” in Claim
13 to Claim 1 as well. Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating the general rule that “a claim term should be construed
consistently with its appearance in other places in the same claim or in other
claims of the same patent”). Accordingly, the Court will instruct the jury that
“second point” in Claim 1 and Claim 13 both refer to “a second point that marks
the lowest end of said can wall.”
Second, the Court previously construed “transition therebetween,” in the
phrase “a circumferentially extending wall extending from said seaming panel to
said reinforcing bead, said wall and said reinforcing bead forming a transition
45

therebetween,” in Claim 50 of Patent ‘875, as “a place between them at which
one changes to another.” The Court adopts its previous construction of this
phrase.
Third, the Court must construe the term “second location” as it is used in
Patent ‘875. The claims themselves provide the best guidance as to the meaning
of “second location.” See Phillips, 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (stating that “the claims
themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim
terms” and “the context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly
instructive”). Claim 14 states that the “second location . . . forms a transition
with [the] reinforcing bead,” and Claim 32 describes it as “the lowermost point of
[the can end] wall.” Based on the plain meaning of the term in context, the Court
will instruct the jury that the “second location” in claims 14, 16, 18, 28, 29, and
32/45 of Patent ‘875 is the “lowermost portion of the can end wall, where the
second portion of the can end wall ends, that forms a transition with the
reinforcing bead.”
3. Can End Wall First Portion Terms
Ball argues for a uniform construction of the following terms: “a portion of
said can end wall” in Claim 50 of Patent ‘875; “first wall portion” and “first portion
of said wall” in Claims 13/14 of Patent ‘826; “a portion of said first wall portion”
in Claims 14/15 of Patent ‘875; and “a portion of said first portion of said can end
wall” in Claims 32/45 of Patent ‘875. Ball’s proposed construction for all of these
46

terms is “the straight upper portion of the can end wall that is not substantially
cylindrical (i.e., is inclined at an angle of at least 20°) before seaming.”
In support of this uniform construction, Ball argues that Claims 13/14 of Patent
‘826 and Claim 50 of Patent ‘875 both require a seaming operation that involves
the “straight upper portion of the can end wall.” Doc. #23 at 34. Even though
Claim 14 and Claims 32/45 of Patent ‘875 refer to a “radiused portion” of the can
end wall, Ball believes that their other reference to a “portion of said first wall
portion” must refer to the “straight upper portion of the can end wall” that is
substantially deformed during seaming. According to Ball, all of these claim terms
must be construed identically as the “straight upper portion of the can end wall” to
prevent Crown from “utiliz[ing] the radiused portion (which actually belongs to the
cover hook) when measuring the amount that an accused can end wall is bent
during seaming.” Id. at 35. Ball believes that Crown’s previous attempt to avoid
summary judgment involved utilizing such a measurement, and that the Court
should adopt Ball’s proposed construction to prevent it from doing so again. Id. at
34-35.
Crown argues against Ball’s proposed construction, which it believes is not a
construction at all, but an attempt to read the specification into the claims. Doc.
#22 at 27-30. According to Crown, Ball is attempting to read the specification
into the claims by specifying an angle inclination of at least 20° and by requiring
the upper portion of the can end wall to be straight. In fact, Crown argues, such a
construction would be contradicted by the specification, and cites to a specific
47

embodiment that demonstrates an upper wall portion that is partially straight and
partially curved. Crown also argues that Ball’s construction improperly equates
“not substantially cylindrical” with being “inclined at an angle of at least 20°.”
Ball’s argument for a uniform construction of all of these terms relies on the
underlying premise that the upper portion of the can end wall is straight. Ball
never, however, explains the basis for this premise, while acknowledging that
several claims, such as Claim 14 and Claims 32/45 of Patent ‘875, refer to a
“radiused portion” of the upper can end wall. Ball even asserts that the radiused
portion “actually belongs to the cover hook” in the same paragraph that it admits
that Claims 14 and 32/45 of Patent ‘875 require that the “first wall portion”
include a “radiused portion.” Doc. #23 at 45.
An examination of the claim language reveals no requirement that any of the
upper wall portions be construed as “straight.” Claim 13 of Patent ‘826 describes
“a first portion of said wall extending from said cover hook to a first point on said
wall” that is “adapted to be deformed during said seaming operation,” with no
requirement that the first portion be straight. To be sure, some part of the can end
wall must be straight, for the purpose of determining the angle that is
perpendicular to the central panel. But the claim contemplates this, by specifying
that “a line between [the] first and second points” determines the angle, and that
line must, by definition, be below the “first wall portion.” Thus, there is no
requirement that the can end wall have a “straight upper portion.” Claim 50 of
Patent ‘875 also plots a straight line, but does so from its “first location” to the
48

wall’s “transition” with the “reinforcing bead,” well below the part above the “first
location” that is bent upwardly during seaming. Again, there is no requirement
that the upper part of the can end wall, above the “first location,” be construed as
a “straight upper portion.”
Furthermore, as mentioned, Claims 14 and 32 of Patent ‘875 both recite
that the “first wall portion” comprises a “radiused portion extending from [the]
seaming panel.” As an adjective describing “an edge or surface,” radiused is
defined as “rounded-off; curved.” Oxford English Dictionary (3d Ed. 2008). Ball’s
proposed construction of the upper portion of the can end wall as “straight”
directly conflicts with the claim language’s description of the first wall portion
having a “radiused portion.” In short, there is no support for Ball’s proposed
construction of “a straight upper portion of the can end wall” in two of the claims,
and it conflicts with the plain meaning of two other claims. Because the remainder
of Ball’s proposed construction only modifies the fictitious “straight upper portion,”
by specifying that it be “not substantially cylindrical (i.e., is inclined at an angle of
at least 20°) before seaming,” it must be rejected in its entirety.
As a final point, the Court believes that each of the claims in question
describes the disputed claim terms with sufficient specificity, within the relevant
context of each claim, that no further construction is necessary. Claim 13 of
Patent ‘826 defines the “first wall portion” as “extending from said seaming panel
to a first location on said wall and comprising a radiused portion extending from
said seaming panel.” The parties have not indicated any source of ambiguity in
49

that language that would befuddle a person skilled in the art. The same
observation applies to “a portion of said first wall portion” as used in Claims 14
and 15 of Patent ‘875. Claim 14 describes the method step of a “seaming
operation deforming said first wall portion such that at least a portion of said first
wall portion after seaming is substantially cylindrical,” and Claim 15 further adds a
limitation that “during said seaming operation at least a portion of said can end
wall first portion is deformed by bending upward by an angle of at least about
16°.” Finally, the “portion of said can end wall” in Claim 50 of Patent ‘875 is part
of a larger phrase that the parties have stipulated to a construction of, modified by
the Court, and set forth infra in Section III.A.2: “to bend a portion of said can end
wall upwardly around said juncture of said chuck walls at a first location on said
can end wall,” construed as “to turn a portion of said can end wall upwardly
around the juncture of the walls of the chuck and against the first chuck wall, with
the portion of said can end wall being bent by more than 10°.” The words and
phrases that surround each of the claims in question provide sufficient guidance as
to the meaning and scope, and the Court does not discern a genuine dispute over
their meaning in the parties’ arguments, beyond what has been addressed. See
U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Claim
construction is a matter of resolution of disputed meanings and technical scope, to
clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee covered by the claims, for
use in the determination of infringement. It is not an obligatory exercise in
redundancy”). Accordingly, the Court will not construe “a portion of said can end
50

wall” in Claim 50 of Patent ‘875; “first wall portion” and “first portion of said wall”
in Claims 13/14 of Patent ‘826; “a portion of said first wall portion” in Claims
14/15 of Patent ‘875; and “a portion of said first portion of said can end wall” in
Claims 32/45 of Patent ‘875.
4. Bending/deforming terms
The parties had agreed upon two constructions of terms relating to the bending
or deforming of the upper portion of the can end wall, which the Court slightly
modified, as set forth above in Section III.A.2-3. The parties present several other
terms related to the bending/deforming process, which the Court addresses
individually below.
a. “adapted to be joined” in Claim 1 and Claim 13 of Patent ‘826
The parties dispute “adapted to be joined,” as used in two claims of Patent
‘826. Claim 1 describes “[a] metal can end adapted to be joined to a can body for
packaging beverages under pressure . . . .” Claim 13 describes “[a] metal can end
for use in packaging beverages under pressure and adapted to be joined to a can
body by a seaming process so as to form a double seam therewith . . . .”
Ball proposes the following construction of “adapted to be joined”: “having a
can end wall with a first straight upper portion that is not substantially cylindrical
(i.e., is not inclined at an angle of at least 20°) before being seamed, such that the
first straight upper portion becomes substantially cylindrical and is bent by more
51

than 10° when seamed.” In support of this construction, Ball repeats the same
argument that it made for the construction of the various terms relating to the
upper portion of the can end wall, stating that “it is imperative” that they be
construed “so that the radiused portion is not included in the upper portion of the
can end wall, which is measured to determine if it is bent by more than 10° to
become substantially cylindrical during seaming.” Doc. #23 at 42.
Crown proposes construing “adapted to be joined” as “designed or
configured to be joined.” Crown cites several cases in support of its construction
and argues that “adapted to be joined” is a commonly used term in patent claims
that is often given this construction. Doc. #22 at 41. Crown characterizes Ball’s
proposed construction as “a wholesale alteration of the claim language” that is
unsupported by the phrase in question. Id. at 42. Finally, Crown argues that the
parties’ agreed construction of Claim 13 already requires that the first wall portion
be bent by more than 10°. Id. Thus, Crown argues, there is no reason to repeat
that requirement in a definition of “adapted to,” or to impose it on Claim 1, which
makes no mention of the seaming method. Id.
The Court agrees with Crown. Even if the Court had not previously rejected
Ball’s argument that no upper can end wall portion could possibly include a
radiused portion (which, as discussed, is contrary to the plain language of the
claims), the Court would still have to reject Ball’s proposed construction because it
connects in no meaningful way to the phrase “adapted to be joined,” much less
explains or construes it.
52

Crown’s argument in support of its proposed construction, “designed or
configured to be joined,” relies on Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In Aspex Eyewear, the Federal Circuit upheld the
district court’s construction of “adapted to” in the claim “said arms and said pair of
magnetic members adapted to extend across respective side portions of a primary
spectacle frame” as “made to,” such that the phrase meant “that the arms and the
pair of magnetic members [we]re made to extend across the top of the respective
side portions of the primary frame.” Id. at 1348. The court noted that “the phrase
‘adapted to’ is sometimes used in claim drafting to carry the broader meaning” of
“suitable for,” and “sometimes to carry a narrower meaning” such as “made to” or
“configured to.” Id. at 1349. The court upheld the narrower construction of
“made to” or “configured to,” because, in the context of the claim, “the phrase
‘adapted to’ is most naturally understood to mean that the arms and magnetic
members are designed or configured to accomplish the specified objective, not
simply that they can be made to serve that purpose.“ Id.
Here, too, the claims reference a specified objective that supports a
construction of “adapted to” as “designed or configured.” Claim 1 describes “[a]
metal can end adapted to be joined to a can body for packaging beverages under
pressure . . . .” Claim 13 describes “[a] metal can end for use in packaging
beverages under pressure and adapted to be joined to a can body by a seaming
process so as to form a double seam therewith . . . .” Both claims reference the
specified objective of joining the can end to the can body. As such, it is obvious
53

that the invention was designed for that purpose. Accordingly, the Court will
adopt Crown’s proposed construction of “adapted to be joined” in Claims 1 and 13
of Patent ‘826, and construe that phrase as “designed or configured to be joined.”
b. “deforming said first wall portion such that at least a portion of said
first wall portion after seaming is substantially cylindrical” in Claim
14 of Patent ‘875; and “said first portion of said can end wall being
pressed against said chuck first wall so that at least a portion of
said first portion of said can end wall is bent upward through an
angle of at least about 16°” in Claims 32/45 of Patent ‘875
The parties have proposed competing constructions for terms in Claim 14
and Claims 32/45 of Patent ‘875. The proposed constructions apply to the
following underlined text of Claim 14:
e) performing said seaming operation by placing one or more seaming
rolls into contact with said peripheral cover hook of said can end while
said can end rotates so as to deform said seaming panel of said cover
hook and said first wall portion and said can body flange into said
double seam, said seaming operation deforming said first wall portion
such that at least a portion of said first wall portion after seaming is
substantially cylindrical, said first location on said wall after said
seaming operation forming the transition from said substantially
cylindrical wall portion to said second wall portion, said line between
said first and second locations on said wall remaining inclined
between about 20° and about 60° with respect to said axial
centerline after completion of said seaming operation.
Ball proposes construing the underlined phrase as “bending the first wall
portion such that the portion of said first wall portion is bent upwardly around the
juncture of the chuck and against the first chuck wall to become substantially
cylindrical, with the portion of said first wall being bent by more than 10°.”
Crown’s proposed construction is “deforming the first wall portion so that at least
54

a part of the first wall portion is substantially cylindrical after seaming, with the
part of the first wall portion that is substantially cylindrical after seaming having
been bent by more than 10° during seaming.”
The parties have also proposed constructions for the following underlined
text of Claim 32:
e) performing said seaming operation by placing one or more seaming
rolls into contact with said peripheral cover hook of said can end so as
to deform said seaming panel of said cover hook and said first wall
portion and said can body flange into said double seam, said first
portion of said can end wall being pressed against said chuck first
wall so that at least a portion of said first portion of said can end wall
is bent upward through an angle of at least about 16°, said first
location on said wall after said seaming operation forming the
transition from said double seam to said second wall portion, said line
between said first and second locations remaining inclined between
about 20° and about 60° with respect to said axial centerline.
Ball proposes construing the underlined text above as “the portion of the
first wall portion is bent upwardly around the juncture of the chuck through an
angle of at least 16° to become substantially cylindrical.” Crown’s proposed
construction is “at least a part of the first wall portion is pressed against the first
wall of the chuck so that it is bent upward through an angle of at least about
16°.”
In support of its proposed constructions, Ball argues that Claims 14 and 32
must be construed so that their mention of a “radiused portion” of the “first wall
portion” not be included in the “portion of the said first wall portion” that is
deformed during seaming, asserting that the “portion of the said first wall portion”
only includes a straight portion of the can end wall. Doc. #23 at 42. Ball also
55

argues that Crown’s proposed constructions are ambiguous because they “only
require that any ‘part’ of the ‘first wall portion’ . . . be ‘deformed’ during seaming.”
Doc. #23 at 42.
Crown argues that Ball’s constructions, by stating that the wall be “bent
upwardly around the juncture of the chuck,” improperly import the requirement
that the chuck walls form a juncture into the claims. Doc. #22 at 42-44. Crown
also argues that Ball’s construction of Claim 32 unnecessarily specifies that the
first wall portion become substantially cylindrical, because this fact can be inferred
from the fact that the claim requires the first wall portion to be pressed against a
substantially cylindrical chuck wall. Id.
As an initial matter, in spite of Ball’s insistence that any construction require
that the portion of the first wall portion that is deformed during seaming be
restricted to a straight portion of the can end wall, its constructions do not do so.
Moreover, as stated previously, there is no basis for reading such a limitation into
the language of the claims, particularly when both Claim 14 and Claim 32 state
that the first wall portion is comprised of “a radiused portion” extending from the
seaming panel.
Furthermore, the Court agrees with Crown’s observation that Ball’s
proposed constructions, insofar as they specify that the portion of the first wall
portion is “bent upwardly around the juncture of the chuck,” impose a foreign
limitation onto the scope of Claim 14 and Claim 32. There is a presumption that
each claim in a patent has a different scope. Versa Corp. v. Ag-Bag- Int’l, Ltd.,
56

392 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed Cir. 2004). Claim 14 and Claim 32 are independent
claims that recite methods that include “bringing [the] chuck into engagement with
[the] can end,” and the chuck in question is described only as “rotatable,” with “a
first circumferentially extending wall” that is “substantially cylindrical.” Claim 32
further describes a seaming operation in which the “first portion of said can end
wall [is] pressed against said chuck first wall,” but there is no requirement that the
juncture of the chuck’s wall be involved in the operation the claim described.
In contrast, Claim 1 and Claim 50 each provide specific descriptions of
processes that involve the juncture of the chuck walls. For example, Claim 1
describes a method that includes the “said rotation of said can end during said first
seaming operation driven by said rotating chuck through driving contact between
said juncture of said first and second walls of said chuck and said inclined wall of
said can end.” Claim 50, which reads almost exactly like Ball’s proposed
construction, describes the “bend[ing] [of] portion of said can end wall upwardly
around said juncture of said chuck walls at a first location on said can end wall.”
Claim 24, which is a dependent claim to Claim 14, does describe “bringing said
chuck wall juncture into engagement with said can end wall proximate said first
location on said can end wall.” This observation further bolsters the argument
against reading the limitation Ball proposes onto Claim 14, because “the presence
of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption
that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.” Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Liebel–Flarsheim Co. v.
57

Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed.Cir.2004)). For the foregoing reasons, the
Court will not adopt a construction of Claim 14 or Claim 32 that incorporates a
requirement that the first wall portion be “bent upwardly around the juncture of the
chuck.”
Crown also argues against Ball’s proposed reference, in Claim 32, that a
portion of the first wall portion “become substantially cylindrical.” Crown states
that its objection is “one of form, not substance,” because the substantially
cylindrical result may be inferred from other language of the claim. Doc. #22 at
44. Given that “[t]he purpose of claim construction is to determine the meaning
and scope of the patent claims that the plaintiff alleges have been infringed,” a
construction that clearly states what is otherwise inferred seems preferable. Every
Penny Counts, Inc. v. Am. Express Co., 563 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed Cir. 2009)
(citing O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360
(Fed.Cir.2008)). Furthermore, Crown has stipulated to constructions that employ
the exact same phrase to describe the first wall portion. Thus, the Court will adopt
the language that Ball proposes and construe Claim 32 as requiring the portion of
the first wall portion in question “to become substantially cylindrical.”
5. “First and second circumferentially extending walls of the chuck”
Both Claim 13 of Patent ‘826 and Claim 50 of Patent ‘875 use the phrase
“first and second circumferentially extending walls [of the chuck]” to describe the
rotatable chuck used in the seaming process. In the following quotations, the
58

phrase is underlined. Claim 13 describes “[a] metal can end for use in packaging
beverages under pressure and adapted to be joined to a can body by a seaming
process so as to form a double seam therewith using a rotatable chuck comprising
first and second circumferentially extending walls, said first and second chuck
walls forming a juncture therebetween.” Claim 50 describes the method of
seaming, two steps of which include “c) providing a rotatable chuck comprising
first and second circumferentially extending walls, said second chuck wall
depending from said first chuck wall so as to form a juncture therebetween” and
“d) bringing said chuck into engagement with said can end.”
Crown’s proposed construction of “first and second circumferentially
extending walls [of the chuck]” is simply “first and second walls encircling the
chuck.” Doc. #22 at 23. Ball proposes “first and second encircling distinct,
discrete, and discernibly separate side surfaces of the chuck, the first wall being a
substantially cylindrical surface and the second wall bring a frustoconical drive
surface with a slope substantially equal to that of the can end wall.” 5 Doc. #23 at
38.

5

Ball also proposes applying these constructions to “first circumferentially
extending wall” in Claims 14, 20, 24, 24, 32/45. 50, 58, 89, including “first
chuck wall” as stated in Claim 50, of the ‘875 Patent, and “second
circumferentially extending wall” in Claim 50, including “second chuck wall” as
stated in Claim 24 of the ‘875 Patent. Ball did not include the aforementioned
terms in the list of patent terms that it was required to submit under S.D. Ohio
Patent R. 105.2(d)(iii), notifying the Court of the terms it considered most
significant to the resolution of the case. The Court will not, therefore, consider its
arguments for construction of those terms separately from those for “first and
second circumferentially extending walls [of the chuck].” However, the Court
59

In Crown v. Ball, the Court construed “first and second circumferentially
extending walls” as “first and second encircling distinct, discrete and discernibly
separate side surfaces of the chuck.” Thus, Crown’s proposed construction, “first
and second walls encircling the chuck,” would delete much of the Court’s previous
construction. As it argued in the previous case, Crown believes that the “distinct,
discrete and discernibly separate” language is “unnecessary.” Doc. #22 at 24.
The Court declines Crown’s invitation to delete the phrase “distinct, discrete and
discernibly separate” from its construction of “first and second circumferentially
extending walls.” As explained in the Court’s previous Markman ruling, “[it] is not
possible to have a first and a second wall, without there being two distinct,
discrete and discernibly separate side surfaces.” Case No. 3:05-cv-281, Doc. #53
at 15. Crown has not improved upon its argument in the previous case against
“distinct, discrete and discernibly separate,” and the Court accordingly rejects the
suggestion to omit that language and adopt a bare-bones construction of the “first
and second circumferentially extending walls [of the chuck].”
On the other hand, Ball’s proposal would have the opposite effect. Ball
proposes a construction that specifies that the first chuck wall is “substantially
cylindrical” and the second chuck wall is a “frustoconical drive surface encircling
the chuck with a slope substantially equal to that of the can end wall.” According

notes that the same analysis and conclusion set forth above for “first and second
circumferentially extending walls [of the chuck]” would apply to the use of “first
circumferentially extending wall” and “second circumferentially extending wall.”
60

to Ball, both of its “proposed constructions are supported by the specification,
which requires the use of a chuck . . . with . . . ‘a frustoconical drive surface’ and
a ‘substantically cylindrical surface portion.’” Doc. #23 at 39. Ball appropriately
references the written specification in support of its construction, due to the
primary role that the written specification plays in claim construction. See Phillips,
415 F.3d 1303, 1315-1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (describing role of the specification in
claim construction and stating that “[t]his court and its predecessors have long
emphasized the importance of the specification in claim construction”). However,
Phillips also recognizes “the distinction between using the specification to interpret
the meaning of a claim and importing limitations from the specification into the
claim . . . “ Id. at 1323. For this reason, the Court will not apply the additional
limitations proposed by Ball to its previous construction of “first and second
circumferentially extending walls.”
Claim 50, in particular, deserves to be shielded from the limitations that Ball
proposes. The proposition that limitations from the written specification should
not be imposed on the claims carries additional force when the limitations in
question appear only in claims that are dependent to the independent claims to be
construed. This is because, notwithstanding the appearance of such terminology
in the specification, “the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular
limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present
in the independent claim.” Id. at 1315 (citing Liebel-Florsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Here, the limitations in question only appear
61

in two dependent claims. Dependent claim 59 recites: “The method according to
Claim 50, wherein said first wall of said chuck is substantially cylindrical.”
Similarly, dependent Claim 60 recites: “The method according to claim 59, wherein
said second chuck wall being substantially frustoconical.” Furthermore, each of
these dependent claims consists only of the limitation in question. A person skilled
in the art would not read these limitations onto the independent claim. Due to their
precise separation from the independent claim into individual dependent claims that
contain no other recitation, a person skilled in the art would presume that they do
not apply to the independent claim. Accordingly, the Court rejects Ball’s proposed
construction, and will not append it to its previous construction of “first and
second circumferentially extending walls.” With its previous construction as a
model, the Court will construe “first and second circumferentially extending walls
[of the chuck]” in Claim 13 of Patent ‘826 and Claim 50 of Patent ‘875 as “first
and second encircling distinct, discrete and discernibly separate side surfaces of
the chuck.”
V.

CONCLUSION
After consideration of the parties’ arguments and the law applicable to claim

construction, the Court construes the terms identified by the parties in their Joint
Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Doc. #18) as follows:

62

1. “rotatable chuck,” as it is used in Claim 13 of Patent ‘826 and Claims 14,
32, 45, 50, 58, and 59 of Patent ‘875 is construed as “rotatable
attachment to a seamer used to hold the can end, and against which the
double seam is formed”

2. “deformed during said seaming operation so as to be bent upwardly around
said juncture of said chuck walls,” in Claim 13 of Patent ‘826, is construed
as “turned upwardly around the juncture of the chuck walls and against the
first chuck wall to become substantially cylindrical, with the first wall
portion being bent by more than 10°”

3. “to bend a portion of said can end wall upwardly around said juncture of
said chuck walls at a first location on said can end wall,” in Claim 50 of
Patent ‘875, is construed as “to turn a portion of said can end wall upwardly
around the juncture of the walls of the chuck and against the first chuck
wall, with the portion of said can end wall being bent by more than 10°”

4. “seaming panel,” as the term is used in Claim 13 of Patent ‘826 and Claims
14, 32, and 50 of Patent ‘875, is construed as the “curved innermost
portion of the peripheral cover hook.”

63

5. “annular reinforcing bead” as it is used in Claims 1 and 14 of Patent ‘826,
and Claims 1, 14, 40, 44, and 50 of Patent ‘875, is construed as
“outwardly concave, generally ‘U’ shaped, ring-like stiffening channel.”

6. “juncture therebetween,” as used in Claim 13 of Patent ‘826 and Claims
24,25 and 50 of Patent ‘875, is construed as “definable edge between the
walls of the chuck (which is a point in cross-section)”

7. “wall extending inwardly and downwardly” in Claims 1 and 13/14 of Patent
‘826 is construed as “a can end wall which is a single surface”

8. “circumferentially extending wall” in Claims 14, 32/45 and 50 of Patent
‘875 is construed as “a can end wall which is a single surface encircling the
center of the can end”

9. “circumferentially extending wall extending from said seaming panel to said
reinforcing bead” in Claims 14 and 50 of Patent ‘875 is construed as “a can
end wall which is a single surface encircling the center of the can end
extending from said seaming panel to said reinforcing bead”

10. “first point” in Claim 1 of Patent ‘826 is construed as “the location at which
the can end wall extends from the termination of the peripheral cover hook”
64

11. “first point” in Claim 13 of Patent ‘826 is construed as “a point on the can
end wall where the first portion of the can end wall terminates, where the
first wall portion is bent upwardly around the juncture of the chuck walls,
and distinct from the ‘first point’ in Claim 1”

12. “adapted to be joined” in Claims 1 and 13 of Patent ‘826 is construed as
“designed or configured to be joined”

13. “said first portion of said can end wall being pressed against said chuck first
wall so that at least a portion of said first portion of said can end wall is
bent upward through an angle of at least about 16°” in Claims 32/45 of
Patent ‘875 is construed as to require the first portion of the can end wall
“to become substantially cylindrical”

14. “first and second circumferentially extending walls [of the chuck]” in Claim
13 of Patent ‘826 and Claim 50 of Patent ‘875 is construed as “first and
second encircling distinct, discrete and discernibly separate side surfaces of
the chuck”

A further scheduling conference, setting forth at that date and other dates
leading to the resolution of this litigation, will be set by separate entry.
65

Date: December 28, 2015

s/ Walter H. Rice
WALTER H. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

66