LACY THORNBURG, District Judge
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the parties' motions for the construction of certain claim language used in U.S. Patent No. 6,308,728, entitled "Spill Containment System and Method" (the `728 patent), and U.S. Patent No. 6,395,417, entitled "Spill Containment System with a Flexible Corrosion-Resistant Liner" (the `417 patent).
The term "claim construction" refers to the scope of the patent as construed by a court. A patent contains an abstract with drawings, a summary of the invention, a detailed description of the invention, known as a specification, and the claims thereof.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case has an extensive procedural history. Only a limited recitation of that history is necessary for this claim construction.
In March 2002, Ramsey Group, Inc., brought this action seeking declaratory judgments that it has not and does not infringe the `728 patent, and that the `728 patent is invalid and/or unenforceable. Complaint, filed March 26, 2002, at 1. Ramsey Group further complained that the Defendants had violated North Carolina statutory law prohibiting unfair and deceptive trade practices and sought damages for these alleged violations. Id. In its supplemental amended complaint, Plaintiff brought the same claims and sought the same relief, but included both the `728 patent and the `417 patent. Supplemental Amended Complaint, filed March 26, 2002, at 1. Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint, which deleted all references to the `417 patent. See Amended Complaint, filed April 16, 2002.
After numerous filings, including the filing of a similar suit in federal court in California by Defendants "Expo Power Systems, Inc. d/b/a EGS International d/b/a Enviroguard, Douglas Frazier, and Kenneth Cotton," Defendants answered Plaintiffs complaint and filed a counterclaim, alleging that Plaintiff infringed the Defendants' `417 patent. Defendants' Answer and Counterclaim, filed August 9, 2002, at 9. The California case was transferred to this Court and the cases were consolidated. Order, filed October 16, 2002. The Defendants then took a voluntary dismissal of their counterclaim. See Memorandum and Order, filed July 25, 2002, at 3. Defendant Expo alone then filed an amended counterclaim, alleging that Plaintiff infringed both the `417 and `728 patents and violated North Carolina state law prohibiting unfair and deceptive trade practices. Defendants' Amended Answer and Expo's Amended Counterclaims to Ramsey's Supplemental Amended Complaint, filed March 5, 2003, at 8. Plaintiff answered the counterclaim, denying the allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs Reply to Amended Counterclaims of Expo Power Systems, Inc., filed March 28, 2003. In response to this Court's Order, the parties have filed claim construction briefs. The parties have narrowed the claim construction issues by filing a set of stipulations, specifying which elements and claims remain in dispute. See Stipulations, filed March 21, 2003.
Since the claim construction briefs were filed, the Court has granted summary judgment for the Plaintiff on Expo's counterclaim and dismissed the Plaintiffs declaratory judgment action on the `728 patent. See Memorandum and Order, filed August 27, 2003. This Memorandum, therefore, will address only the `417 patent.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The patent at issue involves battery spill containment systems. These systems are typically used by companies that require "stable sources of continuous electrical power that function independently of outside utility companies." Plaintiffs Claim Construction Brief ["Plaintiffs Brief], filed April 18, 2003, at 2. The battery spill containment systems are used with stationary battery installations which normally contain "one or more battery racks, each having one or more shelves, [and] are located in a room. The battery rack(s) are situated such that their shelves are substantially parallel to the floor and with sufficient space between the shelves to accommodate one or more batteries on each shelf." Id. at 2-3.
Article 64 of the Uniform Fire Code requires that certain stationary lead-acid battery systems are "provided with a liquid-tight 4-inch-deep spill-control barrier which extends at least 1 inch beyond the battery rack in all directions." Exhibit G, attached to Defendants' Brief in Support of Their Proposed Claim Construction ["Defendants' Brief], filed April 18, 2003, at R0479. Such spill containment systems are necessary to prevent highly corrosive and toxic electrolytes from spilling or leaking. If the electrolytes spill or leak, they can cause damage to persons, surrounding property, and environment. Defendants' Brief, at 3.
The device at issue utilizes a "liquid tight flexible liner" in the spill containment system. Id. , at 4. The liner "sits within the area defined by containment rails," making the spill containment system liquid tight. Id. This device was invented by Douglas Frazier and the `417 patent was issued to him. He then assigned all of his rights, titles and interests to the `417 patent to Expo Power Systems, Inc. Defendants' Amended Answer and Counterclaim, supra , at 10-11.
III. PRINCIPLES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
In an action such as the one at issue, there must first be a construction of the claims of the patent at issue to determine its scope. Bell Atlantic Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This determination, called claim construction, is a question of law for the Court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Once the scope of the claims for the patent has been determined, the jury decides whether the properly construed claims read on the accused device; i.e., infringement is a question of fact for the jury. Bell Atlantic Network, supra.
"The specification must include a written description of the invention . . . and of the manner and process of making and using the same, and is required to be in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention pertains . . . to make and use the same." 37 C.F.R. § 1.71 (a). "The specification must conclude with a claim particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention or discovery." 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(a).
"In construing claims, the analytical focus must begin and remain centered on the language of the claims themselves, for it is that language that the patentee chose to use to `particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the patentee regards as his invention.'" Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2). "It is well-settled that, in interpreting an asserted claim, the court should look first to the intrinsic evidence of record, i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution history. Such intrinsic evidence is the most significant source of the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language." Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). However, not "[a] 11 intrinsic evidence is [created] equal." Interactive Gift Express, supra. First, the claim language is consulted. Id. The claim terms are given their ordinary and accustomed meanings while technical terms are construed as having meanings that a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time thereof would have given to them. Bell Atlantic Network, supra.
If the claim language is clear, the specification is consulted merely to determine if a deviation from that clear language has been specified by the inventor. Interactive Gift Express, supra. "The role of the specification includes presenting a description of the technologic subject matter of the invention, while the role of claims is to point out with particularity the subject matter that is patented." Netword, L.L.C. v. Centraal Corp., 242 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001). "The construction that stays true to the claim language and [that] most naturally aligns with the patent's description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction." Renishaw P.L.C. v. Marposs Societa'per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Where the claim language and specification provide an unambiguous construction, it is unnecessary to consult the prosecution history. Interactive Gift Express, 256 F.3d at 1334. Otherwise, the prosecution history should be consulted to ascertain if the inventor made any express representations in obtaining the patent regarding its scope and the meaning of the claims. Bell Atlantic Network, 262 F.3d at 1268. Only as a last resort should extrinsic evidence be consulted. "In those cases where the public record unambiguously describes the scope of the patented invention, reliance on any extrinsic evidence is improper." Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583.
The prosecution history of a patent is the "complete record of all of the proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, including any express representations made by the applicant regarding the scope of the claims." Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1581.
In discussing the claims of the `417 patent, only those claims for which construction has been requested by the parties will be addressed. The parties have stipulated to the construction of certain terms and those stipulations will be noted. See Stipulations, supra.
IV. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
The first claim to be constructed in the `417 Patent is Claim 1, which reads, with the disputed terms bolded:
A spill containment system for containing a spilled substance from a device, the spill containment system comprising:
a plurality of containment rails that are resistant to damage from the spilled substance;
a plurality of mounts that mount the plurality of containment rails to one another to define an area;
a flexible liner placed within the area and having a base with a wall; a material placed within the area and on the liner which absorbs the spilled substance; and
wherein the mounts permit the removal of at least one of the containment rails to expose the wall of the flexible liner so that the wall may be flexed.
Plaintiffs Brief, at 16; Defendants' Brief, at 6; `417 Patent, at Col. 10, 11. 59-67 to Col. 11, 11. 1-5. Preliminarily, the "ordinary and accustomed meaning" of the term "plurality" is two or more.
See Defendants' Brief, at 16; Plaintiffs Brief, at 10, n. 8. The key terms at issue are the noun "mounts" and the verb "mount." These terms are used throughout the specification. Importantly, the "mounts" in question are those used to "mount" the containment rails to one another, not those used to "mount" the containment rail system to the floor.
Plaintiff argues that the mounts at issue are the slotted corner mounts, discussed in the specification. These corner mounts have "vertical slots which permit a containment rail to be inserted or removed." Plaintiffs Brief, at 17. Relying on a dictionary definition, Plaintiff contends that the noun "mounts" should be construed as "supports that fit a device for use." Id. Plaintiff then argues that the verb "mount" should also be construed using a dictionary definition, specifically as "to arrange or assemble for use." Id., at 18 (quoting Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 554 (1970)).
Defendants contend that the noun "mounts" should be construed more broadly and should include several different structures, not just corner mounts. Defendants' Brief, at 9. "Mounts," then, would include "screws, nails, bolts, corner mounts or other mounting devices." Id., at 6. The interpretation of "mounts" should not be limited to the one embodiment of corner mounts disclosed in the specification as the Plaintiff contends. Id., at 11 (citing Texas Instruments, Inc. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n., 805 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Rather, it should include any device used to fasten or connect one containment rail to another or to another object.
Defendants then argue that the verb "mount" should be construed using "its ordinary meaning which includes to fasten, attach, connect or secure." Id. , at 6.
The word "mounts" is used throughout the specification for the `417 patent. The "mounts" in the specification include several different devices including nails, screws, bolts, and even glue. See '417 Patent at Col. 4, 11, 16-17; Col. 8, 11, 44-52. The common component of all of these mounts is that they connect the containment rails to one another or to another object, such as the floor or a wall. Using the specification and the ordinary meaning of the noun, "mounts" would mean "any devices used to connect the containment rails to one another." The verb "mount" is construed as "to connect the containment rails to one another or to another object."
Claim 1 further requires, however, that "the mounts permit the removal of at least one of the containment rails to expose the wall of the flexible liner so that the wall may be flexed." '417 Patent, supra. The critical issue is the ability to remove the containment rails. The Plaintiff relies on its proposed construction of the terms "mount" and "mounts" and the ordinary meaning of the remaining words of the claim to construe this aspect of Claim 1 as "wherein the supports that fit a device for use permit the removal of at least one of the containment rails to expose a wall of the flexible liner so that the wall may be flexed." Plaintiffs Brief, at 18. Similarly, the Defendants maintain that this phrase should be construed using the terms' ordinary meanings such that "the mounts permit at least one of the containment rails to be removed." Defendants' Brief, at 6.
The proposed constructions by the parties of this part of Claim 1 are similar to each other and the undersigned agrees that the ordinary meaning of the terms should be used. It is important, though, to clarify one aspect of the construction of "removal." The procedure to remove the containment rails should not entail significant work or destruction of the containment rail system. Connectors such as nails, bolts, or glue would not allow for such removal, and, therefore, would not be considered "mounts" with regard to Claim 1. Connectors including screws that can be removed with a screwdriver, and corner mounts with slots for convenient removal would be considered "mounts."
Claim 1, then, is construed as "a plurality of any devices used to connect the containment rails to one another to define an area;" and "wherein these devices allow at least one of the containment rails to be removed, without damaging the containment rail system, in order to expose the wall of the flexible liner so that the wall may be flexed."
The next claim to be constructed is Claim 9, which reads: "The spill containment system of claim 1 wherein the containment rails are adjustable to form one of a plurality of dimensions." Plaintiffs Brief, at 19. Plaintiff argues that this claim should be construed as "wherein the containment rails include structure that permits the containment rails to be adjusted to form one of two or more dimensions." Id. Defendants construe the phrase as to "include the ability to modify the effective length (or other dimension) of a containment rail to allow the dimensions (e.g. the dimensions of the area) to be adjusted. This includes cutting different length rails, combining different length rails or using rails that slide within one another to enable dimensions to be adjusted." Defendants' Brief, at 22-23.
The undersigned finds that the claims and specification support the Plaintiffs interpretation. "Using different rails," as suggested by the Defendants, simply amounts to a new containment rail system, rather than an "adjusted" containment rail system. "Adjusting" does not imply "replacing" the rails. In addition, the specifications support the idea that the same containment rails would be used, but they would be set-up in a different shape. The specifications call for a plurality of holes in the containment rails to allow for this adjustment. See '417 Patent, at Col. 8, 11, 53-61. Claim 9, then, is constructed as: "[t]he spill containment system of claim 1 wherein the containment rails include structure that permits the containment rails to be adjusted to form one of two or more dimensions."
The next claim to be constructed is Claim 12, which reads (with the disputed terms in bold):
A battery storage system comprising the spill containment system of claim 1 and further comprising:
a battery rack located within the area defined by the containment rails and holding a battery;
a door mounted to the battery rack wherein one of the containment rails is removed and the wall of the flexible liner is flexed to permit the door to open.
While the parties have not stipulated to the construction of Claim 12, neither party has suggested to the Court any construction, other than the ordinary meaning of the terms in dispute. The undersigned agrees with the parties and finds that the ordinary meaning of the claim language should be applied. The disputed terms of the claim are constructed as, "a door connected to the battery rack wherein one of the containment rails is removed and the wall of the flexible liner is moved or unfolded in such a way as to permit the door to open."
The next claim to be constructed is Claim 13, which reads: "The battery storage system of claim 12 wherein after closing the door, the wall of the flexible liner is flexed back to its original position and the removed containment rail is remounted to the other containment rails." Plaintiffs Brief, at 19; Defendants' Brief, at 23.
Plaintiff contends the phrase "remounted to the other containment rails" should be construed as "rearranged or reassembled for use with the other containment rails." The rest of the claim should be construed using the ordinary meaning of the terms. Plaintiffs Brief, supra. Defendants' argue that the ordinary meaning of the terms should be used for the entire claim. Specifically Defendants suggest that "after a door (e.g., of a battery rack) is closed, the wall of the flexible liner can be flexed back to its original position and the removed containment rail can be remounted to the other containment rails." Defendants' Brief, supra.
The undersigned disagrees with the Plaintiffs proposed interpretation of the word "remounted." The Court has construed previously the verb "mount" to mean "to connect the containment rails to one another or to another object." Relying on this construction, the undersigned finds that "remounted" means "reconnected." Using this definition and the plain language of the claim, Claim 13 is construed as: "The battery storage system of claim 12 wherein after closing the door, the wall of the flexible liner is moved or folded back to its original position and the removed containment rail is reconnected to the other containment rails."
V. ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the claim terms of U.S. Patent No. 6,395,417, entitled "Spill Containment System with a Flexible Corrosion-Resistant Liner," is hereby construed as follows:
A. Claim 1 of the patent is construed:
1. "A plurality of any devices used to connect the containment rails to one another to define an area;" and "wherein these devices allow at least one of the containment
rails to be removed, without damaging the containment rail system, in order to expose the wall of the flexible liner so that the wall may be flexed."
a. The noun "mounts" means any devices used to connect the containment rails to one another.
b. The verb "mount" means to connect the containment rails to one another or to another object.
B. Claim 9 of the patent is construed: "The spill containment system of claim 1 wherein the containment rails include structure that permits the containment rails to be adjusted to form one of two or more dimensions."
C. Claim 12 of the patent is construed: "a door connected to the battery rack wherein one of the containment rails is removed and the wall of the flexible liner is moved or unfolded in such a way as to permit the door to open."
D. Claim 13 of the patent is construed: "The battery storage system of claim 12 wherein after closing the door, the wall of the flexible liner is moved or folded back to its original position and the removed containment rail is reconnected to the other containment rails."