AngleFix, LLC v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc.

Filing 93

ORDER FOLLOWING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING. Signed by Judge Jon Phipps McCalla on 12/30/2015. (McCalla, Jon)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

ANGLEFIX, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY,
INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:13-cv-02407-JPM-tmp

ORDER FOLLOWING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING

Before the Court is the parties’ request for claim
construction pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).
I.

BACKGROUND
A.

Factual Background

Plaintiff AngleFix, LLC (“AngleFix” or “Plaintiff”) is a
North Carolina corporation with its principal place of business
in North Carolina. (Compl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 1.)

Defendant Wright

Medical Technology, Inc. (“Wright Medical” or “Defendant”) is a
Tennessee corporation with its principal place of business in
Tennessee. (Id. ¶ 6.)

This case involves the alleged

infringement of the following patent on a “multi-angular plate

1

and screw system,” developed by Dr. Laurence E. Dahners (id.
¶ 5):
U.S. PATENT NUMBER

ISSUED

6,955,677
(“the ’677 Patent”)

October 18,
2005

(Compl. ¶¶ 5, 8.)

PATENT
Multi-angular Fastening
Apparatus and
Method for Surgical Bone
Screw/Plate Systems

Plaintiff asserts that it is the exclusive

licensee of the ’677 Patent.

(Id. ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff alleges that

Defendant manufactures and distributes medical products that
infringe one or more of the claims of the ’677 Patent (id. ¶¶ 9,
12, 16).

Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant contributorily

infringes (id. ¶ 13) and induces others to infringe at least one
claim of the ’677 Patent (id. ¶ 14).
B.

Procedural History

This case concerns alleged infringement of United States
Patent Number 6,955,677 (the “’677 Patent”).

(See ECF No. 1.)

The Complaint was filed by Plaintiff on June 11, 2013.
1.)

(ECF No.

On September 20, 2013, Defendant filed an Answer to the

Complaint and Counterclaims.

(ECF No. 7.)

On April 14, 2014,

Defendant filed a petition with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (“PTO”) for inter partes review (“IPR”) before
the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) seeking review of the
’677 Patent.

(ECF No. 21-1 at 2.)

Defendant’s petition was

filed one week after the PTO granted IPR for the ’677 Patent in
2

the parallel case, AngleFix Tech, LLC. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
No. 2:13-cv-02281-JPM-tmp.

On May 1, 2014, the Court granted

the Motion to Stay in the parallel case based on the PTO’s
decision to grant the petition for IPR.

(AngleFix Tech, LLC. v.

Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-02281-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.),
ECF No. 53.)
On June 26, 2014, Defendant filed a Motion to Stay Pending
IPR.

(AngleFix Tech, LLC v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., No.

2:13-cv-02407-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn.), ECF No. 21.)

On July 14,

2014, Plaintiff filed its Response to Defendant’s Motion to
Stay.

(ECF No. 22.)

Defendant filed a Reply on July 22, 2014.

(ECF No. 29.)
On July 15, 2014, both parties filed opening claim
construction briefs.

(ECF Nos. 23, 24.)

On August 15, 2014,

both parties filed responsive claim construction briefs.
Nos. 32, 33.)

(ECF

The parties filed a Joint Claim Construction and

Prehearing Statement on August 29, 2014.

(ECF No. 34.)

On

October 7, 2014, the Claim Construction Hearing was reset to
November 14, 2014.

(ECF No. 39.)

On the same day, Plaintiff

filed notice with the Court that the PTO had granted Defendant’s
IPR with regard to twenty-seven of the thirty-nine ’677 Patent’s
claims.

(ECF No. 40 at 1.)

On October 8, 2014, the Court

ordered the parties to file a Joint Status Report in light of
3

the PTO’s decision to grant IPR.

(ECF No. 41.)

The parties

filed the Joint Status Report on October 15, 2014.
42.)

(ECF No.

The Court granted the Motion to Stay Pending IPR on

October, 22, 2014.

(ECF No. 44.)

On March 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to allow
Plaintiff to voluntarily withdraw the twenty-seven claims under
IPR and to lift the stay pending IPR on the remaining twelve
claims (“Motion to Lift the Stay Pending IPR”).

(ECF No. 45.)

The Defendant filed its Response in Opposition on April 9, 2015.
(ECF No. 46.)

On May 6, 2015, the Court filed an Order for

Clarification as to whether the withdrawal of the twenty-seven
claims would be with prejudice.

(ECF No. 47.)

On May 21, 2015,

Plaintiff filed Notice with the Court that the withdrawal of the
claims would be with prejudice.

(ECF No. 48.)

The Court denied

the Motion to Lift the Stay Pending IPR on June 12, 2015.
No. 49.)

(ECF

On July 6, 2015, Defendant filed the Judgment and

Final Written Decision in the IPR by PTAB.

(ECF No. 50.)

The

decision was based on the patent owner’s disclaiming of all the
claims under review by PTAB.

(See id.)

On July 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Answer to Defendant’s
counterclaims, denying Defendant’s allegations of
non-infringement and invalidity.

(ECF No. 53.)

4

A scheduling conference was held on August 27, 2015.
No. 58.)
was held.

(ECF

On September 28, 2015, the Claim Construction Hearing
(ECF No. 67.)

On October 5, 2015, Defendant filed a

Supplemental Claim Construction Brief on the use of the word
“permanent” in Defendant’s construction of the terms “tap,”
“tapped,” or “tapping.”

(ECF No. 70.)

On October 12, 2015,

Plaintiff filed a responsive post-hearing brief.

(ECF No. 71.)

A settlement conference was held on October 28, 2015 (Min.
Entry, ECF No. 77), but the parties did not reach an agreement.
The Court granted a joint motion for a protective order on
November 16, 2015.
II.

(ECF No. 82.)

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STANDARD
“In conducting an infringement analysis, a court must first

determine the meaning of any disputed claim terms and then
compare the accused device to the claims as construed.”
Proveris Sci. Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc., 739 F.3d 1367,
1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Wavetronix LLC v. EIS Elec.
Integrated Sys., 573 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2009)); accord
Markman, 52 F.3d at 976.

Regarding the first step, claim

construction is a question of law with “evidentiary
underpinnings” to be determined by the court.

Teva Pharm. USA,

Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 835, 838 (2015); Markman
v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390 (1996)).
5

Where

terms or phrases are “not commonly understood,” a court may make
subsidiary findings of fact based on evidence extrinsic to the
patent to assist the court in its task of claim interpretation.
See Teva Pharm., 135 S. Ct. at 837–38.

These factual

determinations precede the court’s ultimate legal construction
of the patent’s claims.
A.

Id.

Claims

Claim construction begins with the language of the claims
themselves.

Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc., 749

F.3d 1349, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Interactive Gift
Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir.
2001)).

Claim terms in the patent “are generally given their

ordinary and customary meaning, which 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.”

Ethicon Endo-Surgery,

Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., 796 F.3d 1312, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc)).

This general rule has two known exceptions:

(1) “when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own
lexicographer,” or (2) “when the patentee disavows the full
scope of the claim term either in the specification or during
prosecution.”

Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d

1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Thorner v. Sony Comput.
6

Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).

Where a

claim term has more than one “ordinary” meaning, or when
reliance on a term’s “ordinary” meaning does not resolve the
parties’ dispute, a determination that a claim term “needs no
construction” or has the “plain and ordinary meaning” may be
inadequate.

O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,

521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
“To determine the scope and meaning of a claim, we examine
the claim language, written description, prosecution history,
and any relevant extrinsic evidence.”

InTouch Techs., Inc. v.

VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315–19); Markman, 52 F.3d at 978-79.
Apart
from
the
claim
language
itself,
the
specification is the single best guide to the meaning
of a claim term.
And while the prosecution history
often lacks the clarity of the specification, it is
another established source of intrinsic evidence.
After considering these three sources of intrinsic
evidence, a court may also seek guidance from
extrinsic evidence.
However, extrinsic evidence may
be less reliable than the intrinsic evidence.
Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc., 744 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Regarding the relationship of dependent claims to
independent claims, there is a presumption under the doctrine of
claim differentiation that limitations found in dependent claims
are not included in the independent claim.
7

See GE Lighting

Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1310 (Fed. Cir.
2014); Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910
(Fed. Cir. 2004).

Claim differentiation, however, “is not a

hard and fast rule, and the presumption can be overcome by a
contrary construction required by the specification or
prosecution history, such as via a disclaimer.”

GE Lighting

Sols., 750 F.3d at 1310.
B.

Intrinsic Record
1.

Specification

“The specification is fundamental to claim construction, as
it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.”
Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. Open E Cry, LLC, 728 F.3d 1309,
1319 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315).

In

determining the meaning to be given to claim terms, a court must
read the terms in the context of the specification as it is the
patent specification which, by statute, must contain a “full,
clear, concise, and exact” description of the invention.

35

U.S.C. § 112(a); accord Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1311.
Consequently, “claim terms must be construed in light of the
specification and prosecution history, and cannot be considered
in isolation.”

GE Lighting Sols., 750 F.3d at 1308-09 (citing

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313).

8

Although claim terms are normally given their ordinary and
customary meaning, a patentee may depart from this rule by
acting as his own lexicographer or by disavowing the claim scope
in the specification.

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316.

“Idiosyncratic language, highly technical terms, or terms coined
by the inventor are best understood by reference to the
specification.”

3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725

F.3d 1315, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1315–16).

To use a special definition of a claim term, the

patentee must “clearly” redefine the term and have an “express
intent” to do so within the patent.

Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365–

66; Elekta Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R. Sci. Int’l, Inc., 214 F.3d
1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
Courts, however, “do not read limitations from the
embodiments in the specification into the claims.”

Hill-Rom,

755 F.3d at 1371 (citing Liebel–Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 904).
This requirement prevents a court from limiting the scope of the
claims to only the preferred embodiment or specific examples
disclosed in the specification.

Epos Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus

Techs. Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[I]t is
improper to read limitations from a preferred embodiment
described in the specification—even if it is the only
embodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication in the
9

intrinsic record that the patentee intended the claims to be so
limited.” (quoting Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 913)).
2.

Prosecution History

“A court should also consider the patent’s prosecution
history, if it is in evidence.

The prosecution history consists

of the complete record of the proceedings before the [U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office].”

InTouch Techs., 751 F.3d at 1341

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
“[P]rosecution history can often inform the meaning of the claim
language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the
invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the
course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it
would otherwise be.”

Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d

1343, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317).

A court “does not rely on the

prosecution history to construe the meaning of the claim to be
narrower than it would otherwise be unless a patentee limited or
surrendered claim scope through a clear and unmistakable
disavowal.”

3M, 725 F.3d at 1322 (citing Trading Techs. Int’l,

Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
C.

Extrinsic Evidence

“Although it is less significant than intrinsic evidence, a
court can consider extrinsic evidence in the record, which
10

‘consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution
history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries,
and learned treatises.’”

Aristocrat Techs. Austl. PTY Ltd. v.

Int’l Game Tech., 709 F.3d 1348, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317).

Although such evidence is

generally considered less reliable than the intrinsic record, a
court is free to consider it and may do so at any stage of its
inquiry.

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317-19.

A court may rely on

extrinsic evidence so long as the evidence does not contradict
the intrinsic record.

Advanced Fiber Techs. (AFT) Trust v. J &

L Fiber Servs., Inc., 674 F.3d 1365, 1374–75 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319).
III. ANALYSIS OF THE ’677 PATENT
The Asserted Patent, U.S. Patent Number 6,955,677, is a
“Multi-angular Fastening Apparatus and Method for Surgical Bone
Screw/Plate Systems.”
A.

The Disputed Claims

The parties disagree about the proper construction of
several claim terms found in the patent.

The independent claims

containing disputed language are as follows, with the dependent
claims referenced and the contested language underlined:

11

1.

Claim 1

Claim 1 is the first independent claim of the ’677 Patent,
on which asserted claims 3, 4, 9, 11, and 18 depend.
1. A surgical plate adapted for fixation with a bone
screw, comprising first and second opposing major
surfaces, an inside surface extending between the
first and second major surfaces and defining an
aperture
generally
coaxially
disposed
about
an
aperture axis, and a non-rotatable, non-threaded
tappable contact region disposed on the inside surface
of the aperture, the tappable contact region having an
inside diameter large enough to permit a bone screw to
pass therethrough at a variable insertion angle
defined between the longitudinal axis of the bone
screw and the aperture axis, and the tappable contact
region is formed so as to allow for being tapped by an
external thread of the bone screw to rigidly affix the
bone screw to the tappable contact region at a
selected one of a plurality of different insertion
angles that can be selectively formed between the axis
of the bone screw and the aperture axis.
(’677 Patent col. 10 ll. 36-51, ECF No. 23-1 at PageID 349.)
2.

Claim 21

Claim 21 is the second independent claim of the ’677
Patent, on which asserted claims 31 and 33 depend.
21. A fastening apparatus
insertion, comprising:

adapted

for

multi-angular

(a) a fastener comprising an elongate section and an
adjoining head section disposed along a fastener
axis, the head section comprising a thread; and
(b) a fastener receiving member comprising first and
second opposing major surfaces, an inside surface
extending between the first and second major
surfaces
and
defining
an
aperture
generally
coaxially disposed about an aperture axis, and a
non-rotatable tappable contact region disposed on
the inside surface of the aperture, the tappable
12

contact region having an inside diameter large
enough to permit the elongate section of the
fastener
to
pass
therethrough
at
a
variable
insertion angle defined between the fastener axis
and the aperture axis, and the tappable contact
region is formed so as to allow for being tapped by
the thread of the head section to rigidly affix the
head section to the tappable contact region at a
selected one of a plurality of different angles that
can be selectively formed between the axis of the
fastener and the aperture axis.
(Id. col. 11 ll. 41-61.)
3.

Claim 39

Claim 39 is the third independent claim of the ’677 Patent,
on which asserted claims 41, 42, and 43 depend.
39. A method for affixing a fastener to a fastener
receiving member at a desired orientation, comprising
the steps of:
(a) providing a fastener comprising an elongate
section and an adjoining head section disposed along
a fastener axis, the head section comprising a
thread;
(b) providing a fastener receiving member comprising
first and second opposing major surfaces, an inside
surface extending between the first and second major
surfaces
and
defining
an
aperture
generally
coaxially disposed about an aperture axis, and a
non-rotatable tappable contact region disposed on
the inside surface of the aperture, the tappable
contact region having an inside diameter large
enough to permit the elongate section of the
fastener
to
pass
therethrough
at
a
variable
insertion angle defined between the fastener axis
and the aperture axis, and the contact region is
formed so as to allow for being tapped by the thread
of the head section to rigidly affix the head
section to the tappable contact region at a selected
one of a plurality of different angles that can be
selectively formed between the axis of the fastener
and the apertur[e] axis;
13

(c) selecting one of the plurality of different
insertion angles at which the fastener is to be
inserted in relation to the fastener receiving
member;
(d) inserting
the
elongate
section
through
the
aperture until the thread of the head section
contacts the non-rotatable tappable contact region;
and
(e) tapping the fastener into the receiving member
such that the fastener is rigidly oriented at the
selected insertion angle by threading the thread of
the head section into the non-rotatable tappable
contact region while the fastener is oriented at the
selected insertion angle.
(Id. col. 12 l. 43 – col. 13 l. 9.)
4.

Claim 47

Claim 47 is the fourth independent claim of the ’677
Patent.
47. A surgical plate adapted for fixation with a bone
screw, comprising first and second opposing major
surfaces, an inside surface extending between the
first and second major surfaces and defining an
aperture
generally
coaxially
disposed
about
an
aperture axis, and a non-threaded tappable contact
region disposed on the inside surface, wherein the
tappable contact region has a minimum inside diameter
large
enough
to
permit
a
bone
screw
to
pass
therethrough at an insertion angle defined between a
longitudinal axis of the bone screw and the aperture
axis, and the tappable contact region is adapted for
being tapped by an external thread of the bone screw
to affix the bone screw to the tappable contact region
at the insertion angle and wherein the tappable
contact region comprises a plurality of protrusions
extending generally radially inwardly from the inside
surface and a plurality of interstices between the
protrusions.
(Id. col. 13 ll. 40-55.)

14

5.

Claim 54

Claim 54 is the fifth independent claim of the ’677 Patent,
on which asserted claims 63 and 65 depend.
54. A fastening apparatus
insertion, comprising:

adapted

for

multi-angular

(a) a fastener comprising an elongate section and an
adjoining head section disposed along a fastener
axis, the head section comprising a thread, said
fastener comprising a surgical bone screw; and
(b) a fastener receiving member comprising first and
second opposing major surfaces, an inside surface
extending between the first and second major
surfaces
and
defining
an
aperture
generally
coaxially disposed about an aperture axis, and a
tappable contact region disposed on the inside
surface, wherein the tappable contact region has a
minimum inside diameter large enough to permit the
elongate
section
to
pass
therethrough
at
an
insertion angle defined between the fastener axis
and the aperture axis, and the tappable contact
region is adapted for being tapped by the thread of
the head section to affix the head section to the
tappable contact region at the insertion angle.
(Id. col. 14 ll. 4-22.)
6.

Claim 71

Claim 71 is the sixth and last independent claim of the
’677 Patent, on which asserted claims 72 and 73 depend.
71. A method for affixing a fastener to a fastener
receiving member at a desired orientation, comprising
the steps of:
(a) providing
a
fastener
comprising
a
threaded
elongate section and an adjoining head section
disposed along a fastener axis, the head section
comprising a thread;
(b) providing a fastener receiving member comprising
first and second opposing major surfaces, an inside
15

surface extending between the first and second major
surfaces
and
defining
an
aperture
generally
coaxially disposed about an aperture axis, and a
tappable contact region disposed on the inside
surface;
(c) selecting
an
insertion
angle
at
which
the
fastener is to be inserted in relation to the
fastener receiving member, wherein the insertion
angle is defined between the fastener axis and the
aperture axis;
(d) inserting
the
elongate
section
through
the
aperture until the thread of the head section
contacts the tappable contact region;
(e) tapping the fastener into the receiving member
such that the fastener is oriented at the selected
insertion angle by threading the thread of the head
section into the tappable contact region while the
fastener is oriented at the selected insertion
angle; and
(f) comprising the step of placing one of the major
surfaces of the receiving member against bone
material, and inserting the elongate section of the
fastener into the bone material by threading the
elongate section into the bone material.
(Id. col. 15 l. 4 – col. 16 l. 3.)
B.

Claim Terms Agreed Upon

The parties agree with respect to the construction of the
terms “interstices,” “protrusions,” and “disposed on the inside
surface” as their plain and ordinary meanings.
2.)

(ECF No. 34 at

The Court acknowledges these constructions, as they may

provide useful and relevant context.

Accordingly, the Court

ADOPTS the agreed-upon constructions of “interstices” to mean
“spaces”; “protrusion” to mean “material that extends out from a
surface and does not form a thread”; and “disposed on the inside

16

surface” to mean “located at or on the inside surface of the
hole.”

(See id.)

C.

The Disputed Terms
1.

“Non-threaded”

Plaintiff asserts that the plain and ordinary meaning of
“non-threaded” is “without a continuous feature on the inner
surface of the hole which has a fixed engagement configuration
with a feature on the surface of the screw.”
23.)

(ECF No. 23 at 4,

Plaintiff argues that the specification of the ’677 Patent

demonstrates that the construction of “non-threaded” is based on
function and not form.

(Id. at 4.)

Plaintiff argues,

therefore, that if a structure on one part can engage with a
structure on a second part in more than one orientation, they
are “non-threaded” regardless of the nature of the thread.
(Id.)

Plaintiff argues that the Defendant’s construction

ignores the patent specification and would permit too many
structures to be considered threads when they would not actually
function as threads.

(Id. at 4-5.)

Defendant argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of
“non-threaded” is “not containing a helical ridge (continuous or
intermittent).”

(ECF No. 24 at 9-10.)

Defendant asserts that

the parties agree that “non-threaded” is the opposite of
“threaded,” which means “bearing a thread.”
17

(Id. at 10.)

Defendant argues that a thread has “two universally accepted
structural features”: a helical form and a length that is either
continuous or intermittent.

(Id.)

Defendant argues that its

construction is consistent with the prosecution history and
patent specification, while Plaintiff’s construction is contrary
to the intrinsic record.

(Id. at 13-15.)

In its responsive

claim construction brief, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s
assertion that the construction of “non-threaded” is based on
function, not form, is unsupported.

(ECF No. 32 at 5.)

The Court first looks to the claims themselves and
construes claim terms therein as having their plain and ordinary
meaning absent indication of a contrary meaning in the
specification or prosecution history.

See 3M, 725 F.3d at 1321;

Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.
Cir. 1996).

The term “non-threaded” appears in independent

claims 1 and 47.

(’677 Patent col. 10 ll. 40-41, col. 13 l. 44,

ECF No. 23-1 at PageID 349, 351.)

The term is used to describe

a tappable contact region to which a bone screw is to be affixed
by tapping.

(Id.)

While the claims do not suggest a meaning

contrary to the plain and ordinary meaning of “non-threaded” as
“not containing a thread,” the Court looks to the specification
for further evidence of the meaning of “non-threaded.”

18

The patent specification describes non-threaded apertures
of a receiving member such as a bone plate as “not contain[ing]
a permanent helical thread structure of fixed orientation.”
(’677 Patent col. 6 ll. 66 – col. 7 l. 1.)

The specification

notes that “the invention departs from the conventional use of a
thread formed on [the] inside surface” of the aperture of a
receiving member.

(Id. col. 6 ll. 63-65.)

The specification

also refers to threads as winding around the outer surface of
the fastener sections in a “generally helical” fashion.
e.g., id. col. 4 ll. 66-67.)

(See,

These descriptions provide some

support to both parties’ constructions.

Other evidence is

needed to determine the proper construction of “non-threaded.”
Intrinsic evidence includes the prosecution history of the
patent.

See supra Part II.B.2, at 10.

“A patentee’s statements

during reexamination can be considered during claim construction
. . . .”

Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 667 F.3d 1261, 1266 (Fed.

Cir. 2012).

IPR and post-grant review have effectively replaced

inter partes reexamination procedures.

See Trial Practice

Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Rules, 37 CFR §§
42.100–42.224 (2012).
In IPR proceedings before PTAB in a different case
involving the ’677 Patent, the patent owner argued that
“[n]on-threaded means not having a thread or a partial thread
19

that functions as a thread.”

(See Smith & Nephew IPR Decision

at 10 (Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill, No.
IPR2014-00112 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2014)), ECF No. 21-3.)

PTAB

determined that the patent owner’s construction, which differed
from the petitioner’s in that it excluded partial threads, that
is, threads with discontinuous ridges, was consistent with the
patent specification.

Id. at 11.

“The broadest reasonable

construction of the claim term ‘non-threaded,’ consistent with
the specification, is ‘not containing any forms of permanent
internal thread structures.’

This construction . . . excludes

both a continuous thread in the form of a helical ridge and a
partial thread that functions as a thread.”

Id.

Defendant’s construction is consistent with the PTAB
construction because it excludes both continuous helical ridges,
or threads, and intermittent helical ridges, which could be
partial threads functioning as threads.

During the claim

construction hearing, Plaintiff argued that there exist
intermittent helical ridges that do not function as threads,
which should not be excluded from the construction of
“non-threaded.”

(Tr. 45:1-12, ECF No. 69.)

While Plaintiff’s

construction does not make explicit reference to whether the
“continuous feature” must function as a thread, the requirement
that the “feature on the inner surface of the hole . . . has a
20

fixed engagement configuration with a feature on the surface of
the screw” suggests that the features function as threads.

(ECF

No. 23 at 4.)
Defendant’s assertion that threads are “universally
accepted” to be helical in structure is supported by extrinsic
evidence.

Dictionary definitions of “thread” in the context of

screws specify a helical nature.

See Thread, Dictionary.com,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thread?s=t (last visited
Oct. 29, 2015) (“the helical ridge of a screw”); Thread,
Merriam-Webster.com,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thread (last visited
Oct. 29, 2015) (“a projecting helical rib . . . by which parts
can be screwed together”).

While dictionary definitions are not

accorded as much weight as intrinsic evidence, their use is not
precluded so long as the definitions are consistent with the
intrinsic evidence.

Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1584 n.6.

In this case, the dictionary definitions do not contradict
the intrinsic record and suggest that “non-threaded” requires
the absence of a helical ridge or rib.

Plaintiff argues that

Defendant’s construction “ignores other shapes of threads,” but
fails to provide evidence of non-helical threads that would be
inconsistent with Defendant’s construction.

21

(ECF No. 23 at 4.)

To accept Plaintiff’s construction would mean that an
aperture that allows for multiple angles of engagement with a
screw must be non-threaded even if the aperture’s surface
contains helical segments otherwise functioning as a thread.
This construction is inconsistent with the plain and ordinary
meaning, the patent specification, the patent owner’s assertion
before PTAB, the construction PTAB itself adopted, and
dictionary definitions.

Defendant’s construction, however, is

too broad and eliminates functionality as a consideration, which
is inconsistent with PTAB’s construction.

Further, Defendant’s

construction does not consider the fixed orientation discussed
by the specification.

Accordingly, the Court modifies

AngleFix’s construction of “non-threaded” and adds
“intermittent” and “helical” so as to exclude apertures whose
inner surfaces contain helical segments functioning as threads.
The Court construes “non-threaded” as: “without a continuous or
intermittent helical feature on the inner surface of the hole
which has a fixed engagement configuration with a helical
feature on the surface of a screw.”
2.

“Tappable contact region”

Plaintiff asserts that there is no plain and ordinary
meaning for “tappable contact region” and proposes that the term
means “a region which is deformable or deflectable by engagement
22

with the head of a bone screw in a manner which retains the bone
screw at a desired, non-predetermined angle.”
26.)

(ECF No. 23 at

Plaintiff argues that the patent specification teaches

that a tappable contact region at the inner surface of a hole
where the screw enters is deformed or deflected by the screw
head to create a functional internal thread.

(Id. at 26-27.)

Plaintiff asserts that the construction of “tappable contact
region” and “tap,” “tapped,” or “tapping” should be consistent.
(Id. at 28.)
Defendant asserts that there is no plain and ordinary
meaning for “tappable contact region” and proposes that the term
means “untapped region of material structured to enable a
threaded fastener to form a custom and mating thread in the
region in response to forceful insertion and rotation of the
threaded fastener.”

(ECF No. 24 at 15.)

Defendant asserts that

a person with ordinary skill in the art would understand
“tappable” to be “able to be tapped, but . . . not yet . . .
tapped.”

(Id. at 16.)

The term “tappable contact region” is used in nearly twenty
claims of the ’677 Patent.

Claim 1, for example, describes the

tappable contact region as
having an inside diameter large enough to permit a
bone screw to pass therethrough at a variable
insertion angle . . . [and] formed so as to allow for
being tapped by an external thread of the bone screw
23

to rigidly affix the bone screw to the tappable
contact region at a selected one of a plurality of
different insertion angles that can be selectively
formed between the axis of the bone screw and the
aperture axis.
(’677 Patent col. 10 ll. 42-51.)

Claim 54 describes the

tappable contact region as “adapted for being tapped by the
thread of the head section to affix the head section to the
tappable contact region at the insertion angle.”
ll. 20-22.)

(Id. col. 14

The patent specification, with references to a

labeled figure in the patent, provides further guidance on the
meaning of “tappable”: “‘tappable’ is used herein to denote that
contact region 85 is structured such that it can be tapped by
second thread 51 of head section 40 of fastener [screw] 10 in
response to forceful insertion and rotation of head section 40
into the material of contact region 85.”

(Id. col. 7 ll. 3-7.)

The engagement between the screw and tappable contact region,
therefore, “enables the user to manipulate second thread 51 of
head section 40 to form, in effect, a custom internal thread in
contact region 85 sufficient to maintain fastener 10 at an
arbitrary orientation . . . selected by the user.”

(Id. col. 7

ll. 8-12.)
The Court may “rely heavily on the written description for
guidance as to the meaning of the claims.”
at 1317.

Phillips, 415 F.3d

In this case, Defendant’s construction is more aligned
24

with the written description of the patent because it follows
the specification more closely than Plaintiff’s construction
does.

Defendant’s construction explains that the material of

the contact region enables the region to be tapped by force
while Plaintiff’s construction only states that there is
“engagement” between the tappable contact region and the screw.
Since “[c]laim 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[,]
. . . . [i]t is not an obligatory exercise in redundancy [of the
claims].”

U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554,

1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (emphasis added).

The Court finds that

Plaintiff’s construction does not adequately clarify the term
“tappable contact region.”
While Plaintiff’s construction does explain that the region
must be “deformable or deflectable,” which is consistent with
the patent specification and dependent claims 46 and 76

(see

’677 Patent col. 8 ll. 61-65, col. 13 ll. 37-39, col. 16 ll.
23-25), the construction cannot be applied to the term
universally in the patent.

The specification references

deformability of the tappable contact region only in a
description of an alternative embodiment.

25

(See id. col. 8 ll.

44-67.) 1

The specification references deflectability of fibers

only in a description of the same alternative embodiment.
id. col. 9 ll. 63-66.)

(See

Where the specification discloses an

embodiment narrower than the scope of invention contemplated by
the claims, it is improper to read those limitations onto the
claimed invention.

See Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d

800, 807 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Although the specification often
describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have
repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those
embodiments.” (citations omitted) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1323)).

In addition, Plaintiff’s construction improperly limits

the tappable contact region to engagement only with a bone
screw.

See infra Part III.C.3, at 29-30.

The Court finds

Defendant’s construction less restrictive in that it is aligned
with the specification as a whole, not just an alternative
embodiment.
Defendant’s construction, however, is not without
inconsistencies.

Defendant’s construction again fails to

1

The specification also refers to protrusions in the tappable contact
region that “may or may not deform or otherwise move” when the fastener is
driven into the contact region. (’677 Patent col. 9 ll. 60-63; see also id.
col. 8 l. 1.) This does not support Plaintiff’s construction for two
reasons: Plaintiff’s construction states that the region itself, not any
protrusion in the region, is deformable or deflectable; and even if the
protrusions were in essence indistinguishable from the region itself, the
specification includes the possibility that no deformation of the protrusions
occurs at all.

26

consider that the fastener contacts the region at a certain
angular orientation.

Additionally, Defendant’s construction

describes a “custom and mating thread” when the specification
refers only to the formation of a “custom internal thread.”
(See, e.g., ’677 Patent col. 7 l. 10.)

“Mating” in the

specification is used only when describing the conventional
method, from which the patent distinguishes itself, of fastening
a threaded-head screw to a plate.
55-59, col. 6 ll. 63-65.)

(See id. col. 1 ll. 41-44,

Thus, it would be inappropriate to

include “mating” in the instant claim construction.
In another case involving the ’677 Patent, PTAB stated that
“the broadest reasonable construction of the claim term
‘tappable contact region,’ consistent with the specification, is
a contact region that is capable of being modified to form an
internal screw thread by means of a tap.”

(Smith & Nephew IPR

Decision at 10 (Smith & Nephew, No. IPR2014-00112).)

PTAB

referenced the ordinary meaning of tap and cited a dictionary
definition of the verb: “to form an internal screw thread in by
means of a tap [i.e., a tool for forming an internal screw
thread].”

(Id. at 9 (quoting Tap, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate

Dictionary 1205 (10th ed. 1993)).)

PTAB, in the IPR proceedings

initiated by Defendant after this case began, also found that “a
tappable contact region is untapped, that is, not pre-tapped . .
27

. [but] adapted to be tapped.”

(Wright Medical IPR Decision at

8 (Wright Medical Tech., Inc. v. Univ. of N.C., No.
IPR2014-00626 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2014)), ECF No. 40-1.)

The

constructions by PTAB support Defendant’s construction, which
includes the limitation “untapped” and describes the creation of
a thread by inserting a threaded fastener.

The creation of a

thread by force is included in the Court’s construction of
“tap,” “tapped,” or “tapping.”

See infra Part III.C.3, at 32.

Thus, the Court does not include that duplicative language in
its construction of “tappable contact region.”
Accordingly, the Court modifies the parties’ constructions
of “tappable contact region” to reflect the above findings.

The

Court construes “tappable contact region” as: “untapped region
of material structured to enable a threaded fastener to tap the
region at a desired, non-predetermined angle.”
3.

“Tap,” “tapped,” or “tapping”

Plaintiff asserts that the plain and ordinary meaning of
“tapped” or “tapping” is “deforming or deflecting the tappable
contact region so as to secure a bone screw at a desired,
non-predetermined angle.”

(ECF No. 23 at 28.)

Plaintiff

asserts that Defendant’s construction improperly requires
permanency of a mating thread.

(Id. at 28-31.)

28

Defendant asserts that “tap,” as in “tapped” or “tapping,”
means “create a permanent mating thread in a material in
response to forceful insertion and rotation of a thread.”
No. 24 at 15.)

(ECF

Defendant asserts that its construction is

consistent with the patent specification and prosecution
history.

(Id. at 17.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s

construction introduces a limitation – “secur[ing] a bone screw”
– that is not supported by the patent specification.

(Id. at 19

(alteration in original).)
The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s limitation requiring
“tap,” “tapped,” or “tapping” to apply only to securing a bone
screw is too restrictive.

While claims 1 and 47 specifically

refer to “a surgical plate adapted for fixation with a bone
screw” (’677 Patent col. 10 l. 36, col. 13 l. 40), other claims
containing the disputed terms more generally refer to
“fasteners” whose threads tap the tappable contact region (see,
e.g., id. col. 11 ll. 43-61).

The specification describes a

fastener “utilized as a bone screw” in a preferred
implementation of the invention but, as such, does not require
all fasteners to be bone screws.

(Id. col. 5 ll. 4-5; see also

id. col. 8 l. 42 (“[i]n non-orthopaedic applications”), col. 9
ll. 8-10 (“the fastener/receiver system provided by the
invention can be applied to any procedure, surgical or
29

non-surgical”).)

To apply Plaintiff’s construction to all

claims would therefore be inappropriate.

See Phillips, 415 F.3d

at 1323 (acknowledging that there is sound reason “to avoid the
danger of reading limitations from the specification into the
claim[s]”).
In addition, Plaintiff’s inclusion of “deforming or
deflecting” is inconsistent with the specification for the same
reasons as stated previously.

See supra Part III.C.2, at 25-26.

Similarly, Defendant’s inclusion of “mating” is inconsistent
with the specification as well.

See id. at 25.

Whether the inclusion of “permanent” in Defendant’s
construction is appropriate is less clear.

The claims

themselves make no mention of tapping to create a permanent
thread.

The claims only state that the fastener be “rigidly

affix[ed]” to the tappable contact region.
Patent col. 11 ll. 56-59.)

(See, e.g., ’677

The patent specification, while

referring to the absence of permanent threads on the inside
surface of the tappable contact region, see supra Part III.C.1,
at 19-20, does not describe the creation of a permanent thread
by tapping a fastener.

(See ’677 Patent col. 2 ll. 19-21, col.

6 ll. 66-67.)
Both parties filed supplemental briefing on the use of the
word “permanent” in the construction of “tap,” “tapped,” or
30

“tapping.”

(See ECF Nos. 70, 71.)

Defendant asserts that

“permanent” was not to mean existing in perpetuity but rather
only “until acted upon by another prevailing force sufficient to
change the material.”

(ECF No. 70 at 4.)

Plaintiff argues that

Defendant’s definition describes “temporary” rather than
“permanent.”

(ECF No. 71 at 4.)

The Court is not persuaded

that the inclusion of “permanent” is either necessary or
appropriate, based on the claims and specification of the ’677
Patent.

Permanency is not a requirement present in the claims,

nor is its mention in the specification in a context germane to
thread creation by a tap.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that

Defendant’s argument, which explicitly acknowledges that a hole
may be re-tapped (see ECF No. 70 at 5), does not support its own
inclusion of “permanent.”
Defendant’s construction also specifies that a thread is
created “in response to forceful insertion and rotation of a
thread.”

(ECF No. 24 at 15.)

The Court finds that this

construction is imprecise because the specification describes
the tappable contact region as being “tapped . . . in response
to forceful insertion and rotation of [the] head section” of a
fastener.

(’677 Patent col. 7 ll. 5-6.)

Thus, the Court finds

“of a head section” to be more accurate and consistent with the
specification than “of a thread.”
31

Accordingly, the Court modifies Defendant’s construction of
“tap,” “tapped,” or “tapping” to reflect the above findings.
The Court construes “tap,” “tapped,” or “tapping” as: “create a
custom internal thread in a material in response to forceful
insertion and rotation of a head section.”
4.

“Variable insertion angle”

Plaintiff asserts that the plain and ordinary meaning of
“variable insertion angle” is “the angle between the screw and
the bone plate can vary.”

(ECF No. 23 at 35.)

Plaintiff argues

that “[t]here is no minimum variance required in the claims.”
(Id. at 36.)

Plaintiff also argues that Defendant’s

construction is incorrect because it inserts limitations –
“limitless” and “between zero and 90 degrees” – not supported by
the patent specification.

(Id. at 35-36.)

Defendant asserts that the meaning of “variable insertion
angle” is “one of a limitless number of angles between zero and
90 degrees with respect to an axis of a fastener and an aperture
axis that can be selected by a user for insertion of the
fastener.”

(ECF No. 24 at 22.)

Defendant argues that there is

no plain and ordinary meaning for the term “variable insertion
angle” in the field and thus, its construction must be derived
from the patent specification.

(Id.)

Defendant cites the

specification, which instructs that the “insertion angle [] can
32

range from 0 to 90 degrees.”
ll. 15-17).)

(Id. (quoting ’677 Patent col. 7

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s

construction is inconsistent with the prosecution history and
arguments made during IPR.

(Id. at 23.)

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that its construction is
the plain and ordinary meaning of “variable insertion angle.”
While the patent specification provides the range of zero to 90
degrees for insertion of the screw with respect to the aperture
axis, it also advises that the insertion angle “in practice will
be less than 90 degrees.”
(emphasis added).)

(’677 Patent col. 7 ll. 16-19

It is unnecessary to include a range in the

construction of “variable insertion angle” when the
specification disclaims such a range, even though the
specification does not offer an alternative maximum angle.

Cf.

Watts v. XL Systems, Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 882-83 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
(holding that a claim term was limited to only those embodiments
described in the specification).

In this case, a range of zero

to 90 degrees is impermissibly broader than what the
specification provides.
Additionally, Defendant’s inclusion of “limitless number of
angles” is unsupported by the claims and specification.

At the

claim construction hearing, Plaintiff argued that it is only
“[m]athematically [that] there is a limitless number of angles
33

between zero and 90.”

(Tr. 30:4-10, ECF No. 69.)

Defendant

conceded that it would be impossible for a screw to create a 90
degree insertion angle with the aperture.

(Id. at 88:1-3.)

In its claim construction brief, Defendant argues that the
patent owner presented a definition to PTAB that stated a
“variable insertion angle . . . [is the ability to select] any
angle without limitation.”
24-11 at PageID 954-55)).

(ECF No. 24 at 23 (citing ECF No.
The Court is unpersuaded that the

patent owner’s definition means that a screw can be inserted at
a limitless number of angles.

Rather, the Court agrees with

Plaintiff that “unlimited angular selection” and “a selection of
an unlimited number of angles” are not the same.
121:4-9, ECF No. 69.)

(See Tr.

support this assertion.

The patent claims and specification
(See ’677 Patent col. 10 ll. 49 (“a

selected one of a plurality of different insertion angles”); id.
col. 3 ll. 53-56 (“It is therefore an object of the present
invention to provide a plate . . . that enables a threaded
fastener to be affixed thereto at a desired angle selected from
a range of available angles.”).) Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS
Plaintiff’s construction of “variable insertion angle”: “the
angle between the screw and the bone plate can vary.”
5.

“Threading”

Plaintiff asserts that “threading” does not need to be
34

construed by the Court because its plain and ordinary meaning is
adequate.

(ECF No. 23 at 31.)

Plaintiff proposes a

construction, however, should the Court decide to construe the
term, specific to its use in the ’677 Patent: “engaging the
thread of the screw head with and/or between the protrusions of
the tappable contact region.”

(Id.)

Plaintiff asserts that

Defendant’s construction “is not incorrect, if the proper
construction for thread is used,” but is also a tautological
definition that does not clarify the term.

(Id.)

Defendant asserts that the plain and ordinary meaning of
“threading” is “forming or engaging a thread” based on the plain
meaning of the word “thread,” which Defendant asserts is “to
form a thread, such as during tapping, or to engage a thread,
such as when mating a threaded screw with a threaded aperture.”
(ECF No. 24 at 24-25.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s

construction improperly limits “threading” to the tappable
contact region, which is inconsistent with the claims and
specification of the ’677 Patent.

(Id. at 24.)

The Court agrees that Defendant’s construction is the plain
and ordinary meaning of “threading.”

The Court finds that

Plaintiff’s construction unnecessarily limits threading to an
engagement of a screw head with and/or between protrusions of
the tappable contact region.

While Plaintiff is not incorrect
35

in that the engagement of the screw head and the tappable
contact region constitutes threading, the patent claims and
specification describe threading in additional contexts.

For

example, threading of the elongate section of a fastener can
extend into bone material.

(See, e.g., ’677 Patent col. 3 ll.

49-52 (“Further threading of the first thread into the bone
material causes the second thread . . . to be threaded into the
tappable contact region of the receiving member”).)

Plaintiff

does not dispute Defendant’s construction except to assert that
it is tautological, but the Court does not find it necessary to
construe “threading” beyond its plain and ordinary meaning when
the plain and ordinary meaning of “thread” applies, see supra
Part II.A, at 6.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Defendant’s

construction of “threading”: “forming or engaging a thread.”
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court construes the

following terms:
CLAIM TERM

Non-threaded

COURT’S CONSTRUCTION
“without a continuous or intermittent
helical feature on the inner surface of
the hole which has a fixed engagement
configuration with a helical feature on
the surface of the screw”

36

CLAIM TERM

COURT’S CONSTRUCTION

Tappable contact
region

“untapped region of material structured to
engage the threaded head of a fastener to
tap the region at a desired,
non-predetermined angle”

Tap, tapped, tapping

“create a custom internal thread in a
material in response to forceful insertion
and rotation of a head section”

Variable insertion
angle

Plain and ordinary meaning: “the angle
between the screw and the bone plate can
vary”

Threading

Plain and ordinary meaning: “forming or
engaging a thread”

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 30th day of December, 2015.

/s/ Jon P. McCalla
JON P. McCALLA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

37

APPENDIX A
CLAIM TERM

ANGLEFIX’S PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION

WRIGHT MEDICAL’S
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

COURT’S CONSTRUCTION

Non-threaded

Plain and ordinary
meaning: “without a
continuous feature on
the inner surface of
the hole which has a
fixed engagement
configuration with a
feature on the
surface of the screw”

Plain and ordinary
meaning: “not
containing a helical
ridge (continuous or
intermittent)”

“without a continuous or
intermittent helical
feature on the inner
surface of the hole which
has a fixed engagement
configuration with a
helical feature on the
surface of the screw”

Tappable
contact region

“a region which is
deformable or
deflectable by
engagement with the
head of a bone screw
in a manner which
retains the bone
screw at a desired,
non-predetermined
angle”

“untapped region of
material structured to
enable a threaded
fastener to form a
custom and mating
thread in the region
in response to
forceful insertion and
rotation of the
threaded fastener”

“untapped region of
material structured to
engage the threaded head
of a fastener to tap the
region at a desired,
non-predetermined angle”

38

CLAIM TERM

Tap, tapped,
tapping

ANGLEFIX’S PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
“deforming or
deflecting the
tappable contact
region so as to
secure a bone screw
at a desired,
non-predetermined
angle”

Plain and ordinary
meaning: “the angle
Variable
between the screw and
insertion angle
the bone plate can
vary”

Threading

“engaging the thread
of the screw head
with and/or between
the protrusions of
the tappable contact
region”

WRIGHT MEDICAL’S
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION

COURT’S CONSTRUCTION

“create a permanent
mating thread in a
material in response
to forceful insertion
and rotation of a
thread”

“create a custom internal
thread in a material in
response to forceful
insertion and rotation of
a head section”

“one of a limitless
number of angles
between zero and 90
degrees with respect
to an axis of a
fastener and an
aperture axis that can
be selected by a user
for insertion of the
fastener”

Adopt AngleFix’s
construction: plain and
ordinary meaning

“forming or engaging a
thread”

Adopt Wright Medical’s
construction: plain and
ordinary meaning

39