Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 1 of 25

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION GARDENIA INDUSTRIAL LIMITED, Plaintiff,

CIVIL CASE NO. 1:07-CV-2672-JTC

v. FEIT ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Defendant. ORDER

This patent infringement action is before the Court for construction of the disputed terms in U.S. Patent No. 7,198,389 (the “‘389 patent”). After reviewing the parties’ briefs and holding a claim construction hearing, the Court construes the disputed claims of the ‘389 patent as follows. I.

Background The technology at issue in this patent infringement action involves

reflector lamps – typically used in track lighting fixtures – which provide spot light properties as well as flood light properties. The patents-in-suit are the ‘389 patent and U.S. Design Patent No. D539,443 (“the ‘443 patent”), owned by Plaintiff Gardenia Industrial Limited. Gardenia alleges that Defendant Feit Electric Company, Inc. manufactures and sells lamps which infringe upon the ‘389 and ‘443 patents. (See generally Pl.’s Disclosure of

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 2 of 25

Infringement Contentions [#28].) Prior to the present invention, track lighting bulbs typically exhibited only spot light properties, where a reflective surface on the interior of the bulb would direct light in a concentrated manner from the end of the lamp. ‘389 patent, col. 1, ll. 29-37. In contrast, flood-type bulbs dispersed light omni-directionally because there was no reflective surface on the inside of the bulb to direct the light in any single direction. ‘389 patent, col. 1, ll. 38-42. The patented invention sought to combine the spot light and flood light properties by having the bulb cavity defined by an elongate translucent shell with both a reflective portion and a translucent portion, such that part of the light is directed forward by the reflective portion and the remaining light is diffused omni-directionally through the translucent portion. See generally ‘389 patent, col. 2, ll. 21-47; Figure 1. The ‘389 patent contains twenty-three claims. ‘389 patent, cols. 3-6. Claim 1 of the ‘389 patent is an independent claim, which recites “a lamp providing combined spot and flood light distribution properties.” ‘389 patent, col. 3, ll. 50-51. Claims 2 through 15 depend upon Claim 1. ‘389 patent, cols. 3-4. Claim 16 of the ‘389 patent is an independent claim which also recites “a lamp providing combined spot and flood light distribution properties.” ‘389 patent, col. 4, ll. 43-44. Claims 17 through 23 depend upon Claim 16. ‘389 2

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 3 of 25

patent, cols. 5-6. The ‘443 patent is a U.S. Design Patent which claims “the ornamental design” for the patented lamp.1 In its Complaint, Gardenia alleges that Feit’s products infringe both the ‘389 patent and the ‘443 patent. Feit filed counterclaims, in which Feit asks the Court to declare that: (1) the ‘443 patent is invalid (Counterclaim Count 1); (2) Feit has not infringed the ‘443 patent (Counterclaim Count 2); (3) the ‘389 patent is invalid (Counterclaim Count 3); and (4) Feit has not infringed the ‘389 patent (Counterclaim Count 4). The parties dispute the construction of several claim phrases found in claims 1, 4, and 16 of the ‘389 patent. The parties do not dispute the construction of the ‘443 patent. II.

Claim Construction Standard Claim construction is a question of law. Markman v. Westview

Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970-71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370, 116 S. Ct. 1384 (1996). “[T]he claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting 1

“A design patent protects the nonfunctional aspects of an ornamental design as shown in the patent.” Elmer v. ICC Fabricating, Inc., 67 F.3d 1571, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Design patents contain no written descriptions, and the drawings contained in a design patent are the patented claims. Hupp v. Siroflex of Am., Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 3

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 4 of 25

Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Generally, the words of a claim are 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 . . . .” Id. at 1312-13 (citations omitted). Occasionally, the meaning of a claim term “may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314. In most instances, however, the Court must go further than the readily understood meaning, and the Court may consult various sources to aid in determining the meaning of the disputed claim language. Id. These sources include: (1) “the words of the claims themselves,” (2) “the remainder of the specification,” (3) “the prosecution history,” and (4) “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). First, “the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Id. Both “the context in which a term is used in the asserted claim” and the “[o]ther claims of the patent in question” are useful for understanding the ordinary meaning. Id. 4

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 5 of 25

In addition, “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. at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). In short, the claims “must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.” Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. Thus, “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). The Court may also consider the patent’s prosecution history. Id. at 1317. “Like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent.” Id. at 1317 (citing Lemelson v. Gen. Mills, Inc ., 968 F.2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). However, the prosecution history “represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation . . . .” Id. For that reason, the prosecution history “often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.” Id. Finally, the Court may also rely on extrinsic evidence, which “consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including 5

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 6 of 25

expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Id. at 1317 (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 980.) However, for many reasons, external evidence is generally less reliable than the intrinsic record. Id. at 1318. For instance, “extrinsic evidence by definition is not part of the patent and does not have the specification’s virtue of being created at the time of patent prosecution for explaining the patent’s scope and meaning.” Id. In addition, “extrinsic evidence consisting of expert reports and testimony is generated at the time of and for the purpose of litigation and thus can suffer from bias that is not present in intrinsic evidence.” Id.; see also id. at 131819. III.

Discussion The parties have identified 11 claim phrases for construction. The

phrases in dispute are broken down by the claims in which they are found. A.

Agreed Upon Constructions

The parties agree to the following constructions: Claim Term

Agreed Upon Construction

reflector portion

a part of the elongate translucent shell that reflects light

reflective surface

a face in the reflector portion that reflects light

light source

an emitter of light held within the elongate translucent shell 6

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 7 of 25

frustroconical

in a cone, a section between a base and a plane parallel to the base

neck portion

a part of the elongate translucent shell that emits light diffusingly

elongate translucent shell

an extended enclosing translucent hard cover that allows light to pass through diffusely

B.

Claim 1 of the ‘389 Patent

Claim 1 of the ‘389 Patent reads (with the disputed terms in bold): A lamp providing combined spot and flood light distribution properties, comprising: an elongate translucent shell defining an interior cavity and having a reflector portion with a reflective surface thereon so that light is directed substantially longitudinally from an end of the shell and a neck portion lacking a reflective surface so that light emits through the shell substantially radially omnidirectionally therethrough; a socket-engaging base attached to the neck portion and including a pair of electrical contact members for communicating with respective electrical contacts of a socket of a light fixture for communicating with a supply of electricity; and a lamp capsule disposed within the interior cavity and having a light source therein connected to a pair of electrical leads that extended therefrom for communicating with the electrical contact members, whereby light emitted from the light source communicates diffusingly radially omni-directionally through the neck portion and directedly substantially longitudinally from the reflector portion. 7

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 8 of 25

‘389 patent, col. 3, ll. 50 – col 4, ll. 4. 1.

combined spot and flood light distribution properties2

The parties propose the following constructions for the phrase “combined spot and flood light distribution properties”: “combined spot and flood light distribution properties” Gardenia’s Proposed Construction

Feit’s Proposed Construction

“the two functional light distribution properties that result from the structural elements of the claimed lamp”

“a lamp having a frustroconical shaped reflective portion that emits light in a focused and defined light pattern and a frustroconical shaped translucent neck portion that emits light in an evenly diffused light pattern”

Although both parties propose constructions for the phrase “combined spot and flood light distribution properties,” the phrase is found in the preamble of Claim 1 and need not be construed. “If the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim.” Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298,

2

This phrase is also found in the preamble to Claim 16. The parties stipulate that the construction of this term is the same for Claim 1 and Claim 16.

8

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 9 of 25

1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). However, the preamble need not be construed when “a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.” Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). The Federal Circuit has identified several “guideposts” to aid courts in determining whether a preamble should be given limiting weight. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Those “guideposts” include: (1) “dependence on a particular disputed preamble phrase for antecedent basis[;]” (2) whether “the preamble is essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body[;]” (3) whether the preamble “recit[es] additional structure or steps underscored as important by the specification[;]” (4) whether the patentee showed “clear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from prior art[;]” (5) whether “deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention[;]” and (6) whether the preamble merely describes the “use or purpose” of the invention. Id. at 808-809. The phrase “combined spot and flood light distribution properties” does not limit the lamp described in Claim 1. This phrase could be removed from 9

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 10 of 25

the preamble and the structure and meaning of the claimed lamp would not change. The functions of providing both spot light and flood light characteristics are further defined in the body of Claim 1, and the use of the phrase in the preamble is not essential to understand the limitation of those functions in the claim body. Therefore, the Court need not construe the preamble phrase “combined spot and flood light distribution properties.” 2.

light is directed substantially longitudinally from an end of the shell; light emits through the shell substantially radially omnidirectionally therethrough; and whereby light emitted from the light source communicates diffusingly radially omni-directionally through the neck portion and directedly substantially longitudinally from the reflector portion3

The parties propose the following constructions for the above phrases: “light is directed substantially longitudinally from an end of the shell” Gardenia’s Proposed Construction

Feit’s Proposed Construction

3

These phrases are also found in Claim 16, and the parties do not propose that the phrases should be construed differently in Claim 16. Accordingly, the construction of these phrases is the same for Claims 1 and 16.

10

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

“a light distribution property resulting from the structural elements of the claimed lamp that directs light substantially longitudinally from an end of the elongate translucent shell”

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 11 of 25

phrase is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 and incapable of construction

“light emits through the shell substantially radially omni-directionally therethrough” Gardenia’s Proposed Construction

Feit’s Proposed Construction

“a light distribution property resulting from the structural elements of the claimed lamp that emits light in many directions from the neck portion of the elongate translucent shell”

phrase is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 and incapable of construction

“whereby light emitted from the light source communicates diffusingly radially omni-directionally through the neck portion and directedly substantially longitudinally from the reflector portion” Gardenia’s Proposed Construction

Feit’s Proposed Construction

phrase is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. “light distribution properties § 112, ¶ 2 and incapable of resulting from the structural elements of the claimed lamp that construction emits light (1) in many directions from the neck portion of the elongate translucent shell and (2) substantially longitudinally from the reflector portion of the elongate translucent shell” Feit argues that these claim phrases are incapable of construction and,

11

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 12 of 25

therefore, indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 24. As indicated above, Gardenia contends that the phrases should be construed to mean the functional result (how light is emitted) of the structural elements disclosed in the patent (an elongate shell with both a reflector portion and a neck portion). Although the parties did not address 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 in their briefs or at oral argument, the “means-plus-function” analysis set forth in § 112, ¶ 6 applies in this case. That paragraph states that: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Usually the term “means” is used to indicate that the element is to be construed in accordance with § 112, ¶ 6. If a claim does not use the term “means,” a rebuttable presumption is triggered that § 112, ¶ 6 does not apply to the construction of the phrase in question. Apex, Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc., 325 F.3d 1364, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2003). This presumption may be rebutted, however, by demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that “the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure” or that the claim “recites a function without reciting 4

Feit bears the burden of proving indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 282; Halliburton, 514 F.3d at 1249-50.

12

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 13 of 25

sufficient structure for performing that function.” Id. at 1372 (citations and quotations omitted). In this case, although the term “means” was not used in Claim 1, the language of Claim 1 and the specification indicate that the “means-plusfunction” analysis applies. Claim 1 discloses a combination as a means for performing a specified function. The combination is the reflector portion of the elongate translucent shell and the non-reflective neck portion, which results in a lamp with both spot and flood light capabilities. Defendant Feit correctly argues that the inability to give a precise definition to the phrases “substantially longitudinally” and “substantially radially omni-directionally” raises problems of indefiniteness.5 However, 5

The Court is familiar with and considered Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, which Defendant Feit relied on in arguing that the functional language in Claims 1 and 16 rendered the claims indefinite. In Halliburton, the Federal Circuit considered whether a patent for a “fragile gel” useful in drilling operations was adequately described in the claims. Halliburton, 514 F.3d at 1250-56. The opinion referred to early Supreme Court cases which pointed out the danger of using only functional claim limitations: In General Electric, the Court held that a vice of functional claiming occurs “when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty.” Id. at 1255 (citing General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371, 58 S. Ct. 899 (1938)). The “fragile gel” was the point of novelty in the Halliburton patent, which the Federal Circuit found ambiguous and insufficient to delineate the bounds of the invention. Id.

13

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 14 of 25

Claim 1 uses the functional phrase “substantially longitudinally” to describe the spot light function and “substantially radially omni-directionally” to describe the flood light function. See Apex, 325 F.3d at 1372 (“Th[e] presumption can collapse when a limitation lacking the term ‘means’ nonetheless relies on functional terms rather than structure or material to describe performance of the claimed function.”) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Thus, although the word means is not used, the intrinsic record demonstrates that the phrases should be construed pursuant to § 112, ¶ 6, provided the specification discloses the structure which performs the function claimed. Claims construed pursuant to § 112, ¶ 6 are construed more narrowly than claims construed pursuant to traditional claim construction principles. HERBERT F. SCHWARTZ & ROBERT J. GOLDMAN, PATENT LAW AND PRACTICE § 5.IV.C (6th ed. 2008) (citing Nomos Corp. v. BrainLAB USA, Inc., 357 F.3d In the present case, the point of novelty is the elongate translucent shell, which emits light both longitudinally and omni-directionally. Unlike Halliburton, the specification adequately discloses the structures which perform the functions claimed in the present patents. As the Halliburton opinion noted, “claims are not indefinite merely because they present a difficult task of claim construction. . . . Nevertheless, this standard is met where an accused infringer shows by clear and convincing evidence that a skilled artisan could not discern the boundaries of the claim based on the claim language, the specification, and the prosecution history, as well as her knowledge of the relevant art area.” Id. at 1249-50. Feit has not shown that a skilled artisan would be unable to determine the boundaries of the claims in the present case.

14

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 15 of 25

1364, 1367-69 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). If read literally, “a claim limitation described as a means for performing a function . . . could encompass any conceivable means for performing the function.” Valmont Indus., Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., Inc., 983 F.2d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). As a result, § 112, ¶ 6 allows a patentee to claim an invention using means-plus-function language, but with a “string attached[:]” the scope of the claim expressed in means-plus-function format is limited “to the structure, material, or acts in the specification and their equivalents.” Id. Thus, under § 112, ¶ 6, courts must construe claims to cover: (1) “the structure or material disclosed in the patent’s specification that perform the claimed functions[;]” and (2) “equivalents of that disclosed structure or material.” PATENT LAW AND PRACTICE § 5.IV.C (citing Versa Corp. v. Ag-Bag Int’l Ltd., 392 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). To determine the scope of the phrases “substantially longitudinally” and “substantially radially omnidirectionally,” the Court must determine what structures are disclosed in the specification to perform those functions. Claim 1 requires that light be emitted “substantially longitudinally” from the reflector portion of the elongate translucent shell. ‘389 patent, col. 3, ll. 52-55, col. 4, ll. 1-4. The specification discloses that “the reflector portion includes a light reflecting surface that extends from a light emitting end to 15

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 16 of 25

the flood portion generally intermediate the end and a base.” Id. col. 2, ll. 2731. “[T]he reflector portion is frustroconical in cross-sectional view having a major diameter at the end and a minor diameter at the transition to the flood portion.” Id. col. 2, ll. 34-37. “The interior surface of the shell in the reflector portion includes grooves and ridges to provide additional facets or reflective surfaces for communication of light from the end.” Id. col. 2, ll. 37-40. Claim 1 also requires that light be emitted “substantially radially omnidirectionally” from the neck portion of the elongate translucent shell. Id. col. 3, ll. 55-58, col. 4, ll. 1-4. The specification discloses that the neck portion of the elongate translucent shell is “a second frustroconical shape in crosssectional view with a major diameter at the transition with the reflector portion and a minor diameter at the connection of the flood portion with the base.” Id. col. 2, ll. 41-45. The neck portion “lacks a reflective or opaque surface, allowing light to communicate through the shell.” Id. col. 2, ll. 45-47. In relation to one another, the reflector portion of the elongate translucent shell is larger than the neck portion. Id. col. 3, ll. 27-31 (disclosing the diameters of the reflector and neck portions of the illustrated embodiment). The specification also discloses that “[t]he reflector portion complies with MR11 standards for a reflector lamp while [] the base and

16

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 17 of 25

electrical contacts, with the feet, complies with GU10 standards.” Id. col. 3, ll. 22-25.6 Thus, the scope of the phrases “light is directed substantially longitudinally from an end of the shell” and “light emits through the shell substantially radially omni-directionally” – as well as the “whereby” clause at the end of Claim 1 which combines the phrases – includes: 1.

2.

Lamps with the following structural elements: a.

a larger, frustroconical shaped portion which has a reflective surface, includes grooves and ridges on the interior surface, and has a large diameter at end of the shell and a small diameter where it meets the neck portion;

b.

a smaller, frustroconical shaped portion which lacks any reflective surface and has a large diameter where it meets the reflector portion and a small diameter where it meets the base; and

c.

the reflector portion complies with MR11 standards for a reflector lamp and the base and electrical contacts comply with GU10 standards.

All lamps with equivalent structural elements.7

6

Feit, who bears the burden of proving indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence, has not demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be familiar with MR11 and GU10 standards. MR16 and MR11 are standard formats for halogen reflector lamps made by a variety of manufacturers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MR16. 7

The issue of whether a particular means for performing a claimed function is an “equivalent” under § 112, ¶ 6 has been treated by courts as a question of fact rather than a claim construction issue. See PATENT LAW AND PRACTICE § 5.IV.C (citing Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1213 (Fed. Cir.

17

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

C.

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 18 of 25

Claim 4 of the ‘389 Patent

Claim 4 of the ‘389 Patent reads (with the disputed terms in bold): The lamp as recited in claim 2, further comprising a lens covering a major end of the major frustroconical reflector portion. ‘389 patent, col. 4, ll. 9-11. Claim 4 is dependent upon claim 2, which reads: The lamp as recited in claim 1, wherein the reflector portion is frustroconical. ‘389 patent, col. 4, ll. 5-6. Claim 1 explains that part of the elongate translucent shell has a “reflector portion with a reflective surface.” ‘389 patent, col. 3, ll. 52-53. Claim 2 further requires that the “reflector portion” be “ frustroconical.” Id. col. 4, ll. 5-6. Claim 4 requires that a lens cover a major end of the major frustroconical reflector portion. Id. col. 4, ll. 9-11. The parties propose the following constructions for the phrases “major frustroconical reflector portion” and “a major end of the major frustroconical reflector portion”: “major frustroconical reflector portion” Gardenia’s Proposed Construction

Feit’s Proposed Construction

2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1058 (2003)).

18

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

“the larger of the two frustroconical portions of the elongate translucent shell”

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 19 of 25

phrase is indefinite due to insufficient antecedent basis8 if construed, “the frustroconical portion of the lamp that directs light in a forward direction”

“a major end of the major frustroconical reflector portion” Gardenia’s Proposed Construction “in the elongate translucent shell, the larger of the two ends of the frustroconical reflector portion”

Feit’s Proposed Construction phrase is indefinite due to insufficient antecedent basis if construed, “the round base portion of the frustroconical reflector portion that has a major diameter and directs focused light in a forward direction”

The parties agree that “frustroconical” means “in a cone, a section between a base and a plane parallel to the base.” See supra Section III.A. Thus, frustroconical, as defined by the parties, looks like the figure below:

8

Feit contends that the phrases are indefinite because they lack a sufficient antecedent basis in the patent. However, the parties agree to the meanings of “frustroconical” and “reflector portion,” and the patent uses the term “major” to mean larger and the term “minor” to mean smaller. Accordingly, each word in the phrases have an antecedent basis in the patent. 19

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 20 of 25

In the illustrated embodiment of the patented invention, as well as the embodiment claimed in Claim 4, the reflector portion is frustroconical. See ‘389 patent, col. 2, ll. 34-37. The specification explains that the major diameter of the frustroconical reflector portion is at the end of the lamp and the minor diameter is at the portion of the reflector which transitions into the neck portion of the lamp. ‘389 patent, col. 2, ll. 34-37. The patent then states that the diameter of the end of the lamp is 35 mm and the diameter at the transition between the reflector and neck portions is 24 mm. Id. col. 3, ll. 2730. Thus, when read in context, the patent uses the term “major” to mean larger and the term “minor” to mean smaller. The parties agree that “reflector portion” means the “part of the elongate translucent shell that reflects light.” See supra Section III.A. Accordingly, the phrase “major frustroconical reflector portion” means “the larger frustroconical portion of the elongate translucent shell that reflects light.” In addition, based upon the specification’s use of the terms major and minor, the phrase “a major end of the major frustroconical reflector portion” means “the larger of the two ends of the larger frustroconical reflective portion.” D.

Claim 16 of the ‘389 Patent

Claim 16 of the ‘389 patent reads (with the disputed terms in bold): 20

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 21 of 25

A lamp providing combined spot and flood light distribution properties, comprising: an elongate translucent shell defining an interior cavity and having a major frustroconical reflector portion with a reflective surface thereon so that light is directed substantially longitudinally and a minor frustroconical light transmissive portion lacking a reflective surface so that light emits through the shell substantially omni-directionally therethrough; a socket-engaging base attached to a minor diameter of the light transmissive portion and including a pair of electrical contact members for communicating with respective electrical contacts of a socket of a light fixture for communicating with a supply of electricity; and a lamp capsule having a light source therein connected to a pair of electrical leads that extend therefrom and electrically communicate with the electrical contacts for communicating with the supply of electricity, said lamp capsule disposed within the interior cavity with a portion within the light transmissive portion and a portion within the reflector portion, whereby light emitted from the light source communicates diffusingly radially omni-directionally through the shell defining the minor frustroconical light transmissive portion and directedly substantially longitudinally from the major frustroconical reflector portion. ‘389 patent, col. 4, ll. 43 – col. 5, ll. 2.9

9

As noted above, the construction of the phrases “light is directed substantially longitudinally” and “light emits through the shell substantially omnidirectionally therethrough” – as well as the whereby clause at the end of Claim 16 – are the same for Claim 1 and Claim 16. See supra Note 3.

21

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 22 of 25

The parties propose the following constructions for the phrase “minor frustroconical light transmissive portion” and “a minor diameter of the light transmissive portion”: “minor frustroconical light transmissive portion” Gardenia’s Proposed Construction

Feit’s Proposed Construction

“the smaller of the two frustroconical “the frustroconical shaped translucent portion of the lamp that portions of the elongate translucent shell” allows light to pass through only diffusely, such as to prevent perception of distinct images through the material; for example, frosted glass” “a minor diameter of the light transmissive portion” Gardenia’s Proposed Construction “in the elongate translucent shell, the smaller of the two ends of the second frustroconical portion”

Feit’s Proposed Construction “the minor diameter of the frustroconical shaped translucent portion of the lamp that allows light to pass through only diffusely, such as to prevent perception of distinct images through the material; for example, frosted glass”

The embodiment claimed in Claim 16 contains both a frustroconical reflector portion and a “frustroconical light transmissive portion.” ‘389 patent, col. 4, ll. 45-51. The parties agree that “frustroconical light transmissive portion” refers to the “neck” or “flood” portion of the lamp. (See Def.’s Claim Constr. Br. [#32] at 21; Pl.’s Responsive Claim Constr. Br. at 8.) The parties further agree that the “neck” portion of the lamp means the “part 22

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 23 of 25

of the elongate translucent shell that emits light diffusingly.” See supra Section III.A. Moreover, as noted above, the specification uses “major” to mean larger and “minor” to mean smaller. See supra Section III.C. Accordingly, the Court construes the phrase “minor frustroconical light transmissive portion” to mean “the smaller frustroconical portion of the elongate translucent shell that emits light diffusingly.” In addition, based upon the specification’s use of the terms major and minor, the phrase “a minor diameter of the light transmissive portion” means “the smaller of the two ends of the neck portion.” IV.

Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court construes the disputed terms of

the ‘389 patent as follows: Disputed Phrase “combined spot and flood light distribution properties”

Construction Not Construed.

23

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 24 of 25

“light is directed substantially The scope of these phrases includes: longitudinally from an end of the shell” (Claim 1) and “light is directed (1) Lamps with the following substantially longitudinally” (Claim structural elements: 16) (a) a larger, frustroconical shaped portion which has a reflective surface, includes grooves and ridges on the interior surface, and has a large diameter at end of the “light emits through the shell shell and a small diameter substantially radially omniwhere it meets the neck directionally therethrough” (Claim portion; 1) and “light emits through the shell substantially omni-directionally (b) a smaller, frustroconical therethrough” (Claim 16) shaped portion which lacks a reflective surface and has a large diameter where it meets the reflector portion and a small diameter where it meets the base; and “whereby light emitted from the light source communicates (c) the reflector portion diffusingly radially omnicomplies with MR11 standards directionally through the neck for a reflector lamp and the portion and directedly substantially base and electrical contacts longitudinally from the reflector comply with GU10 standards. portion” (Claim 1) and “whereby light emitted from the light source (2) All lamps with equivalent communicates diffusingly radially omni-directionally through the shell structural elements. defining the minor frustroconical light transmissive portion and directedly substantially longitudinally from the major frustroconical reflector portion” (Claim 16)

24

Case 1:07-cv-02672-JTC

Document 46

Filed 06/11/2009

Page 25 of 25

“major frustroconical reflector portion”

“the larger frustroconical portion of the elongate translucent shell that reflects light”

“a major end of the major frustroconical reflector portion”

“the larger of the two ends of the larger frustroconical reflective portion”

“minor frustroconical light transmissive portion”

“the smaller frustroconical portion of the elongate translucent shell that emits light diffusingly”

“a minor diameter of the light transmissive portion”

“the smaller of the two ends of the neck portion”

SO ORDERED, this 11th day of June, 2009.

________________ JACK T. CAMP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25