Mud Buddy v. Gator Tail
Filing
94
MEMORANDUM DECISION/Markman Order. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 7/4/12 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
MUD BUDDY, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability
Company,
MARKMAN ORDER
(MEMORANDUM DECISION)
Plaintiff – Counterclaim Defendant,
v.
Case No. 2:08-CV-0972- DN-PMW
GATOR TAIL, LLC, a Louisiana Limited
Liability Company,
Judge David Nuffer
Defendant - Counterclaimant.
I.
INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court for construction of claims contained in United States
Patent No. 6,302,750, entitled “Marine Motor Drive Assembly” (“the ‘750 Patent”) and United
States Patent No. 6,361,388, entitled “Marine Motor Drive Assembly” (“the ‘388 Patent”),
(collectively “the Patents”). Plaintiff Mud Buddy, LLC (“Mud Buddy”) alleges that defendant
Gator Tail, LLC (“Gator Tail”) is infringing the Patents. (See Dkt. #20). A hearing was held in
this matter on June 1, 2012 (“Markman Hearing”), pursuant to Markman v. Westview
Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370, 116 S. Ct. 1384,
134 L. Ed. 2d 577 (1996), during which the Court verbally indicated its construction of the
relevant claim terms, and ordered the parties to prepare a proposed order reflecting that ruling.
The parties prepared this proposed order in compliance with the Court’s direction. The parties
hereby stipulate (except as otherwise indicated) that the form of this proposed order reflects the
substance of the Court’s ruling at the Markman Hearing, but the parties expressly reserve their
objections to the substance of this proposed order based on their respective proposed claim
1
constructions as reflected in their briefing for and arguments at the Markman Hearing.
For the ‘750 Patent, the following terms are at issue:
1. Marine mud motor,
2. Drive shaft,
3. Area, formed between the inner and outer seals, configured to contain pressurized
lubricant
4. Roller bearing,
5. Oriented to stop lubricant flow from the housing cavity,
6. Oriented to allow lubricant flow away from the bearing,
7. Lubricant chamber,
8. Pressurized lubricant,
9. Pressurization gap,
10. The outer seal and inner seal are one-way seals positioned in opposing flow
directions, and
11. Spaced apart from the outer seal.
For the ‘388 Patent, the following terms are at issue:
1. Elongate drive tube,
2. Inner seal, and
3. Outer seal.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Claim construction is the process by which a court determines the meaning of the patent
claims. Though the patents should contain substantial information on the invention and relevant
technology, the patent claims determine the scope of the patent owner’s right to exclude. In
Markman v. Westview Instruments Inc., the Supreme Court held claim construction is a matter of
law and a threshold issue for the trial court. 517 U.S. 370, 372, 116 S. Ct. 1384 (1996). Thus,
most patent cases include a “Markman” hearing in the pretrial procedures, where the court
resolves disputes over the patent claims’ meanings.
In Phillips v. AWH Corp., the Federal Circuit restated claim construction’s basic
principles and reiterated the goal is to determine the claims’ meanings to a person of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the patent application was filed. 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(“The descriptions in patents are not addressed to the public generally, to lawyers or to judges,
2
but, as [35 U.S.C. § 112] says, to those skilled in the art to which the invention pertains or with
which it is most nearly connected”) (quoting In re Nelson, 280 F.2d 172, 181 (C.C.P.A. 1960)).
“At the time” means “[a] claim cannot have different meanings at different times; its meaning
must be interpreted as of its effective filing date.” PC Connector Solutions LLC v. SmartDisk
Corp., 406 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “[W]hen a claim term understood to have a narrow
meaning when the application is filed later acquires a broader definition, the literal scope of the
term is limited to what it was understood to mean at the time of filing.” Kopykake Enters. v.
Lucks Co., 264 F.3d 1377, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Claims are either independent or dependent. Dependent claims “refer[] back to and
further limit[] another claim or claims in the same application.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(c). The person
of ordinary skill in the art is a theoretical construct. It is a person who is presumed to be aware of
all the pertinent prior art and who possesses all the skills, experience, and education
commensurate with the sophistication of the particular technology. Endress + Hauser, Inc. v.
Hawk Measurement Sys. Pty. Ltd., 122 F.3d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re GPAC Inc., 57
F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
The Court may draw from four sources of evidence to construe claims. In the order of
priority, these sources are:
1. The claim language;
2. The patent’s remaining portions, known as the “specification;”
3. The patent application’s history with the patent office, known as the “prosecution
history” or “file history” (e.g., the communications back and forth between the
patent examiner and the applicant); and
4. Limited extrinsic evidence to assist with understanding the background
technology and the state of the art.
The first three sources of evidence are “intrinsic” evidence. The fourth is extrinsic
evidence and can be used in claim construction, but only in limited circumstances because
3
“undue reliance on extrinsic evidence poses the risk that it will be used to change the meaning of
claims in derogation of the [intrinsic record] thereby undermining the public notice function of
patents.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318-1319 (citation omitted). “In most situations, an analysis of
the intrinsic evidence alone will resolve any ambiguity in a disputed claim term. In such
circumstances, it is improper to rely on extrinsic evidence. In those cases where the public record
unambiguously describes the scope of the patented invention, reliance on any extrinsic evidence
is improper.”
The claims, specification, and file history, rather than extrinsic evidence, constitute the
public record of the patentee’s claim, a record on which the public is entitled to rely. In other
words, competitors are entitled to review the public record, apply the established rules of claim
construction, ascertain the scope of the patentee's claimed invention and, thus, design around the
claimed invention. Allowing the public record to be altered or changed by extrinsic evidence
introduced at trial, such as expert testimony, would make this right meaningless.” Vitronics
Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
The patent claims’ words define the scope of the patent owner’s monopoly. Phillips, 415
F.3d at 1312 (citation omitted). “A claim construction analysis must begin and remain centered
on the claim language itself . . . .” Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “The specification shall conclude with one or more claims
particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as
his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Because the claim language determines the invention’s scope, the claim language is
always the proper starting point. Comark Commc’n., Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186
(Fed. Cir. 1998). Unless ambiguous or otherwise clearly modified by other intrinsic evidence,
4
claim terms have the ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary
skill in the relevant art at the time the patent application was filed. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13
(“The 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”) (citation omitted).
After consulting the claim language, analysis proceeds to the patents’ specifications.
Section 112 states the specification must contain a written description in sufficient detail as to
enable one skilled in the art to practice the claimed invention. Thus, the claims are read in view
of the specification. The specification helps define claims because it “inform[s] the public during
the life of the patent of the limits of the monopoly asserted, so that it may be known which
features may be safely used or manufactured without a license and which may not.” Ariad
Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
“[A] patentee may choose to be his own lexicographer and use terms in a manner other
than their ordinary meaning, as long as the special definition of the term is clearly stated in the
patent specification or file history.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.
Cir. 1996).
Extrinsic evidence is any evidence not part of the patent’s claims, specification, or
prosecution history. Because patents frequently involve technology unfamiliar to the court,
extrinsic evidence may provide background information and assist in understanding how the
invention works, or whether a particular claim term has a specialized meaning to a person of
ordinary skill in the art. Phillips, 415 at 1318. Background extrinsic information may be
presented through expert testimony, dictionaries, or technical treatises. See id. at 1317-18
(discussing types of extrinsic evidence). And, because the patent claims are to be construed as
would be understood by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the patents’ effective
5
filing dates, extrinsic evidence may be taken to “demonstrate the state of the prior art at the time
of the invention.” Markman v. Westview Instr., Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
III.
DISCUSSION
A
.The ‘750 Patent
1
.
Marine Mud Motor.
The term “marine mud motor” appears in the preambles to the asserted claims in both
Patents. “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if
it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Marketing Int’l, Inc. v.
Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Mud Buddy proposes that “marine
mud motor” be construed simply as a marine motor capable of operating in shallow water
applications where mud can be present. Gator Tail proposes a definition of a “marine mud
motor” importing details from the specification into the claim:
A specialized marine motor of the type shown in the figures of the ‘750 patent
and has a design that (i) has been used for more than 30 years in the U.S. and
Asia from the filing date of the ‘750 patent and that (ii) has a long drive tube that
encases a drive shaft that is three to seven feet in length and that (iii) allows the
mud motor’s propeller to ride gently over obstacles encountered while under
propelling power.
Based on the canons of construction and this Court’s reading of the Patents, Mud
Buddy’s reasoning articulated in its briefing, and the record evidence, the Court construes
“marine mud motor” to mean:
A marine motor capable of operating in shallow water applications where mud
can be present.
2
.
Drive Shaft
The parties dispute the meaning of a “drive shaft.” 1 Mud Buddy proposes that the term
1
The term “drive shaft” appears in the preamble of claim 1 of the ‘750 Patent, dependent claim
6
“drive shaft” be defined as a shaft for driving a propeller. Gator Tail proposes that the term
“drive shaft” be construed to mean a shaft that is powered for rotation and is three to seven feet
in length.
The Court will not import the specification’s length limitation into the claim language.
Gator Tail’s proposed construction omits the fact that the shaft drives a propeller. Mud Buddy’s
proposed construction omits the fact that the shaft is powered. Based on the canons of
construction, this Court’s reading of the Patents, Mud Buddy’s reasoning articulated in its
briefing, and the record evidence, the Court construes “draft shaft” to mean:
A powered shaft for driving a propeller.
3
.
Area, formed between the inner and outer seals, configured to contain
pressurized lubricant.
The parties next dispute the meaning of the claim term “area formed between the inner
and outer seals configured to contain pressurized lubricant.” 2 Mud Buddy proposes that the term
mean an area or space located between the inner and outer seals capable of containing a
pressurized lubricant. Gator Tail proposes that the claim term mean an area formed by spacing
apart the inner seal from the outer seal, such area being able to contain pressurized lubricant.
Here, Gator Tail’s proposed construction imports claim limitations from the
specification and presumes that no part of the seals can be touching. The claim language
at issue does not preclude any portion of the seals from touching, but rather merely
requires an “area, formed between the inner and outer seals, configured to contain
pressurized lubricant.”
The Court believes construction of this claim term involves the application of the widely
11, and dependent claims 15 and 16. It also appears in each of the independent claims of the
‘388 Patent.
2
This claim term is found in independent claim 1 of the ‘750 Patent.
7
accepted meaning of commonly understood words. “If the claim language is clear on its face,
then [] consideration of the rest of the intrinsic evidence is restricted to determining if a deviation
from the clear language of the claims is specified.” Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d at 1331.
Based on the canons of construction and this Court’s reading of the Patents, Mud
Buddy’s reasoning articulated in its briefing, and the record evidence, the Court adopts
Mud Buddy’s proposed construction of:
An area or space located between the inner and outer seals capable of containing
a pressurized lubricant.
4
.
Roller Bearing
The parties dispute the meaning of a “roller bearing.” 3 Mud Buddy proposes that the
term be construed as a mechanism for supporting a radial load while facilitating rotation of two
surfaces relative to each other. Gator Tail proposes that the term be defined how it is used as it is
ordinarily understood in mechanical engineering with the addition of the terms defined in the
‘750 patent, namely, that the roller bearing generates hydraulic pressure on its lower end due to
its accelerated rotation and slope.
Neither party’s proposed definition adequately captures the meaning of this claim term.
Gator Tail’s proposed definition would import limitations from the specification, which states:
“Hydraulic pressure is generated on the lower end of the bearing due to its accelerated rotation
and slope.” (‘750 Patent, col. 2, lines 62-64). Mud Buddy’s proposed definition eliminates the
functional aspect of the roller bearing in the context of the invention.
The patent claims the roller bearing functions as part of the invention to create greasemoving pressure within the drive assembly, thus this Court believes the structure and meaning to
one of ordinary skill in the art may be discerned from the claim language. The roller bearing is
3
The term “roller bearing” appears in the ‘750 patent for independent claim 14 (and,
correspondingly, dependent claims 15 and 16) as well as dependent claims 3, 4, 13, 19 and 20.
8
claimed to generate “pressure” so as to force lubricant past the inner seal. Based on the canons of
construction and this Court’s reading of the Patents, the parties’ reasoning articulated in their
briefing, argument at the Markman hearing, and the record evidence, the Court construes “roller
bearing” to mean:
A bearing in which the main load is transferred through rolling contact rather
than in sliding contact, and which generates hydraulic pressure.
5
.
Oriented to stop lubricant flow from the housing cavity
The parties next dispute what is meant by the outer seal being “oriented to stop lubricant
flow from the housing cavity.” 4 Mud Buddy proposes that the Court should construe the phrase
to mean an outer seal placed in the housing cavity so as to act in combination with the inner seal
to restrict lubricant flow from exiting the housing cavity. Gator Tail proposes that this limitation
means the orientation of the outer seal to stop lubricant flow from exiting the lower end of the
drive assembly.
The Court finds that the word “stop” is capable of understanding, and declines to
substitute the word “restrict.” The Court adds the word “housing” to Gator Tail’s proposed
construction to clarify that it is the drive assembly housing from which the lubricant might exit.
Based on the canons of construction and this Court’s reading of the Patents, Gator Tail’s
reasoning articulated in its briefing and the record evidence, the Court construes “oriented to stop
lubricant flow from the housing cavity” to mean:
The orientation of the outer seal to stop lubricant flow from exiting the lower end
4
This limitation is found in the ‘750 Patent in independent claim 1, independent claim 7, and
independent claim 14. The phrase is not found in independent claim 17, which contains the step
of “preventing lubricant from flowing out of the assembly housing by orienting an outer one-way
seal in the lower end of the assembly housing.” In the ‘388 Patent, independent claim 14
contains a variation of this limitation: “oriented to restrict fluid from flowing in the direction
from the upper end of the enlarged drive assembly housing to the lower end of the enlarged drive
assembly housing.”
9
of the drive assembly housing.
6
.
Oriented to allow lubricant flow away from the bearing.
The parties stipulated during the course of the Markman proceedings on a meaning for
this term. The Court adopts that stipulated meaning as:
The one-way inner seal is oriented to allow lubricant to flow away from the
bearing and past the inner seal.
7
.
Lubricant Chamber
The parties next dispute the meaning of “lubricant chamber.” 5 Mud Buddy proposes that
the Court define lubricant chamber to mean a lubricant chamber that is located between inner
and outer seals and which chamber contains pressurized lubricant. Gator Tail proposes a
lubricant chamber that is located between spaced apart inner and outer seals and which chamber
is pressurized by pressurized lubricant that has flowed past the inner seal. Similar to the claim
term regarding “an area, formed between the inner and outer seals, configured to contain
pressurized lubricant,” the disagreement appears to be whether the inner and outer seals must be
“spaced apart.”
The intrinsic record does not suggest that spacing the seals apart means that no portion of
one seal may touch a portion of the other seal. Moreover, the claims do not require such a
configuration and there is no clear disavowal of claim scope in the intrinsic record as stated in
Mud Buddy’s briefing. In light of the overall teachings of the Patent, however, the Court believes
it is instructive to include a description that the lubricant chamber contains lubricant that has
flowed past the inner seal. This addition helps orient the reader as to where this lubricant
chamber is and that it functions to receive the lubricant. Accordingly, the Court construes this
5
“Lubricant chamber” is a limitation in dependent claim 5 (and, correspondingly, dependent
claim 6), dependent claim 9, and independent claim 14 (and, correspondingly, dependent claims
15-16) of the ‘750 Patent. Independent claim 17 of the ‘750 Patent merely uses the term
“chamber.”
10
claim term as meaning:
A lubricant chamber that is located between inner and outer seals and which
chamber contains pressurized lubricant that has flowed past the inner seal.
8
.
Pressurized Lubricant
The parties next dispute the meaning of the term “pressurized lubricant.” 6 Mud Buddy
proposes that pressurized lubricant is “a lubricant that is under pressure.” Gator Tail proposes
that pressurized lubricant is “lubricant at a pressure above the pressure acting on the outer seal
from outside the drive housing whether the drive is running or at rest.”
The claim language does not require the lubricant to be pressurized at all times, whether
the drive is running or at rest as stated in Mud Buddy’s briefing. However, the Court finds the
pressure difference as compared to external pressure to be an important characteristic of the
pressurized lubricant as stated in Gator Tail’s briefing.
Therefore, the Court construes “pressurized lubricant” to mean:
Lubricant at a pressure above the pressure acting on the outer seal from outside
the drive housing.”
9
.
Pressurization Gap
The parties next dispute the meaning of “pressurization gap” in the ‘750 Patent. 7 Mud
Buddy proposes that the pressurization gap is “the gap formed between the pressurization
member and the inner seal.” Gator Tail proposes the “pressurization gap” to be “the gap formed
between the roller bearing and inner seal and which gap provides an area for the roller bearing to
6
“Pressurized lubricant” is a limitation in the ‘750 Patent in independent claim 1 (and,
correspondingly, dependent claims 2-6), and dependent claim 12 in the ‘750 Patent. Independent
claim 14 (and, correspondingly, dependent claims 15-16) specify “pressurized grease.”
Dependent claims 9 and 17 speak in terms of “pressurizing” the chamber, and dependent claims
10, 18, and 19 specify the act to “pressurize lubricant.”
7
“Pressurization gap” is mentioned in dependent claim 4 (depending from independent claim 1),
claim 10 (depending from independent claim 7), independent claim 14, and dependent claims 18
and 19 (both of which depend from independent claim 17).
11
generate lubricant pressure so that the lubricant is forced past the inner seal.”
The Court does not find the claim language to be limited to roller bearings and chooses
not to import limitations from the specification into the claims. The Court finds that the
pressurization gap’s function in providing an area for pressure to build is important to the term.
The Court further finds that the pressurization gap’s additional function of making lubricant flow
past the inner seal is described in the language of claims 9 and 10. Therefore, the Court
construes “pressurization gap” to mean:
The gap formed between the bearing and the inner seal which gap provides an
area for pressure to build.
1
0
.
The outer seal and inner seal are one-way seals positioned in opposing flow
directions.
The parties dispute the meaning of the phrase “the outer seal and inner seal are one-way
seals positioned in opposing flow directions.” 8 Mud Buddy proposes that the phrase means “the
the outer and inner seals are positioned so that the non-flow direction of one seal is opposite
from the other seal forming an area between the seals configured to contain pressurized
lubricant.” Gator Tail proposes that the phrase means “the outer and inner one-way seals are
positioned so the non-flow direction of one seal is opposite from the other.” In their Joint Claim
Construction and Prehearing Statement, the parties stipulated to the definition of one-way seal as
“a seal capable of and designed to allow the passage of fluid in one direction past the seal and
stop passage of fluid past the seal in the opposite direction.” 9
Based on the canons of construction and this Court’s reading of the Patents, the parties’
briefing, argument at the Markman hearing, and the record evidence, the Court construes this
8
This phrase is only found in dependent claim 6. Dependent claim 12 specifies that the “outer
and inner seals are both one way seals, directionally flow oriented to capture pressurized
lubricant between the seals.”
9
Docket Entry #50 at 3.
12
term to mean:
The outer and inner seals each permit flow in only one direction and are
positioned so the direction of flow through one seal is opposite the direction of
flow through the other seal.
1
.
Spaced apart from the outer seal
The parties next dispute the meaning of “spaced apart from the outer seal.” 10 Mud Buddy
proposes that this phrase means that the “[i]nner and outer seals are placed within the drive
assembly such that there is a space between the seals.” Gator Tail proposes that the “[s]eals are
spaced sufficiently apart from one another to provide an area between the seals that can provide
for the containment of pressurized lubricant.”
Similar to the reasoning articulated for the term “area, formed between the inner and
outer seals, configured to contain pressurized lubricant” the Court believes that the inner and
outer seals need only be placed within the drive assembly such that there is space between the
seals. Consequently, the Court construes “spaced apart from the outer seal” to mean:
Inner and outer seals are placed within the drive assembly such that there is space
between the seals.
B
.The ‘388 Patent.
1
.
Elongate drive tube
Within the ‘388 Patent, the Parties first dispute the meaning of the term “elongate drive
tube.” 11 Mud Buddy contends that elongate drive tube be defined as “a tube that is of sufficient
length to encase a drive shaft.” Gator Tail proposes to define elongate drive tube as “a tube that
is of sufficient length to receive a drive shaft that is three to seven feet in length.”
Similar to the dispute regarding construction of “drive shaft,” none of the claims in the
10
“Spaced apart” is only found in Independent claim 7 (and, correspondingly, dependent claims
8-13) of the ‘750 Patent.
11
The term “elongate drive tube” is found in each of the independent claims (1, 7, and 14) of the
‘388 Patent.
13
‘388 Patent specifies any length of the elongate drive tube. For same reasoning articulated for
construction of the term “drive shaft,” this Court adopts Mud Buddy’s proposed construction of
elongate drive tube as: A tube that is sufficient of length to encase a drive shaft.
2
.
Inner Seal
The Parties next dispute the meaning of the term “inner seal” within the context of the
‘388 Patent. 12 Gator Tail proposes to define “inner seal” in the ‘388 Patent to mean “a seal that is
positioned nearer the upper end of the enlarged drive assembly housing tha[n] the outer seal and
which is oriented to prevent the escapement of pressurized lubricant from the upper end of the
enlarged drive assembly housing.” Mud Buddy proposes that the term means “a seal located in a
drive assembly housing near the outer seal and between the outer seal and an upper end of the
drive assembly,” the meaning stipulated to by the parties with respect to use of that term in the
‘750 Patent.
The Court believes the differences between the claims of the ‘388 Patent and the ‘750
Patent justify departure from the Parties stipulated meaning of the term “inner seal” within the
context of the ‘750 Patent. The Court adopts components from each party’s proposed
construction and construes “inner seal” within the context of the ‘388 Patent to mean:
A seal located in an enlarged drive assembly housing near the outer seal and
between the outer seal and an upper end of the enlarged drive assembly housing
oriented to restrict fluid from flowing in a direction from the lower end to the
upper end of the enlarged drive assembly housing.
3
.
Outer Seal
With respect to the ‘750 Patent, the parties stipulated that “outer seal” means “[a] seal
suitable for marine propulsion applications that is located in the lower end of a drive assembly
12
“Inner seal” appears in the ‘388 Patent in independent claim 14.
14
housing.” 13 Mud Buddy proposes the same definition of “outer seal” as in the ‘750 Patent. Gator
Tail proposes to define “outer seal” in the ‘388 Patent to mean “a seal that is mounted into the
lower end of the drive housing and is oriented to prevent the escapement of pressurized lubricant
from the lower end of the enlarged drive assembly housing.”
As with “inner seal,” the Court believes that a departure from the stipulated meaning of
the term “outer seal” in the ‘750 Patent is justified. Based on the canons of construction and this
Court’s reading of the Patents, the Parties’ reasoning articulated in the briefing, , and the record
evidence, the Court construes “outer seal” within the context of the ‘388 Patent to mean:
A seal located in the lower end of an enlarged drive assembly housing oriented to
restrict fluid from flowing in a direction from the upper end to the lower end of
the enlarged drive assembly housing.
Dated July 4, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________
David Nuffer
United States District Judge
13
“Inner seal” appears in the ‘388 Patent in independent claim 14.
15
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?