Case 1:13-cv-00535-CMH-IDD Document 81 Filed 10/11/13 Page 1 of 37 PageID# 2054
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`
`HUMANSCALE CORPORATION
`
`PLAINTIFF,
`
`DEFENDANTS’ AMENDED OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 1:13-cv-535-CMH-IDD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MASS ENGINEERED DESIGN, INC., ET AL.
`
`
`v.
`
`DEFENDANTS.
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-00535-CMH-IDD Document 81 Filed 10/11/13 Page 2 of 37 PageID# 2055
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………..…1
`
`II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK……………………………………………………………………..2
`
`III. HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION TO
`THE GENERAL TECHNOLOGY AT ISSUE……………………………………...…2
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF THE DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS……………………………...3
`
`
`A. Arm………………………………………………………………………………….....3
`
`B. Base/base member/base structure……………………………………………………6
`
`C. Each of the first computer display and the second computer display is capable
`of being more vertical than horizontal………………………….…………….……..…8
`
`D. extendable from a retracted configuration
`to an extended configuration………………………………………..……………….…10
`
`E. mounting portion……………………………………………………………………11
`
`F. means for adjusting the angular orientation
`of each of the displays relative to the arm assembly
`to thereby permit said displays to be angled
`toward each other to a desired degree………………………………………………...11
`
`G. means for adjusting the angular orientation of each
`of the display relative to the arm assembly about a generally
`vertical axis to thereby permit said displays to be angled
`relative to each other to a desired degree…………………………………………..…14
`
`H. mounting means for mounting the displays to the arm assembly………………..15
`
`I. mounting member……………………………………………………………………16
`
`J. positioning means for positioning displays…………………………………………17
`
`K. rest[ing] on a...surface………………………………………………………………19
`
`L. resting on a counter………………………………………………………………….19
`
`M. stand[ing] on [a/the] ... surface……………………………………………………..20
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-00535-CMH-IDD Document 81 Filed 10/11/13 Page 3 of 37 PageID# 2056
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V. CONCLUSION………………………………………...………………………………...….30
`
`N. support arm structure [having a single piece support arm]……………………...22
`
`O. support means for supporting the arm assembly from the base member……….24
`
`P. support means having a base for supporting
`the arm assembly above a support surface……………………………………………26
`
`Q. support surface………………………………………………………………………26
`
`R. the ends are oriented vertically…………………………………………………..…27
`
`S. Agreed terms needing correction………………………………………………...…29
`
`T. Other agreed terms………………………………………………………………….29
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-00535-CMH-IDD Document 81 Filed 10/11/13 Page 4 of 37 PageID# 2057
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`
`Acromed Corp. v. Sofamor Danek Group, 253 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001)…………………..13
`
`British Tel. PLC v. Prodigy Commc’n Corp., 189 F. Supp. 2d 101 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)……………….18
`
`Cole v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 102 F.3d 524 (Fed. Cir. 1996)…………………………………19
`
`Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, , 344 F.3d 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003)…………………………………2
`
`Group One v. Hallmark Cards, 407 F.3d 1297 (Fed.Cir.2005)…………………………………...29
`
`Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004)………………....18
`
`Mass Engineered Design, Inc., et al. v. Ergotron, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:06-cv-0272……1, 12, 14
`
`NeoMagic Corp. v. Trident Microsystems, Inc., 287 F.3d 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2002)…………………17
`
`Novo Industries v. Micro Molds, 350 F.3d 1348 (Fed.Cir.2003)………………………………….29
`
`O2 Micro Int'l v. Beyond Innovation Technologies, 521 F.3d 1361 (Fed.Cir.2008)………….20, 28
`
`Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)………………………..20, 28
`
`Personalized Media Communications, L.L.C. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998)…………………………………………………………..……….19
`
`Phillips v. AWH, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)……………………………………...2, 17, 20, 28
`
`Sage Prods. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420 (Fed. Cir. 1997)……………………………19
`
`Searfos v. Pioneer Consolidated Corp., 374 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2004)……………………….19
`
`Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002)……………………...20, 28
`
`TI Group Auto. Sys. (N. Am.), Inc. v. VDO N. Am., L.L.C., 375 F.3d 1126 (Fed. Cir. 2004)………...…18
`
`Wenger Mfg., Inc. v. Coating Mach. Sys., Inc., 239 F.3d 1225, 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2001)………....13
`
`York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center,
`99 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996)………………………………………………………...18-19
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-00535-CMH-IDD Document 81 Filed 10/11/13 Page 5 of 37 PageID# 2058
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6)…………………………………………………………………………2, 11, 15
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-00535-CMH-IDD Document 81 Filed 10/11/13 Page 6 of 37 PageID# 2059
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. RE36,978, entitled “Dual Display System” (the
`
`I.
`
`
`
`“’978 patent)(Exhibit 1), which issued in 2000; RE42,091, entitled “Computer Display Screen
`
`System and Adjustable Screen Mount, and Swinging Screens Therefor” (the ‘091 patent)(Exhibit
`
`2), which issued in 2011; 8,102,331, entitled “Horizontal Three Screen LCD Display System”
`
`(the “’331 patent”)(Exhibit 3), which issued in 2013; and 8,462,103, entitled “Computer Display
`
`Screen System and Adjustable Screen Mount, and Swinging Screens Therefor” (the “‘103
`
`patent”)(Exhibit 4), which issued in June of this year. At a high level, the patents-in-suit
`
`generally relate to various novel display apparatuses for systems comprising multiple computer
`
`monitors. Jerry Moscovitch is the sole listed inventor on the ‘978 and ‘331 patents, and he is the
`
`first listed inventor on the ‘091 and ‘103 patents. Mr. Moscovitch is also the president of MASS
`
`Engineered Design, Inc. (collectively they are referred to herein as “MASS”), and MASS is the
`
`exclusive licensee of the patents-in-suit. In this proceeding, MASS contends that Humanscale
`
`infringes multiple claims of the patents-in-suit.1
`
`
`
`
`
`Prior Related Case
`
`On July 7, 2006, MASS filed suit against Ergotron and others in Texas for infringement
`
`of the ‘978 Patent (the “Texas Case”). The Texas case was styled MASS Engineered Design,
`
`Inc., et al. v. Ergotron, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:06-cv-0272. Ultimately, the case went to trial and
`
`a jury found in favor of MASS. Of particular relevance here is that the court in the Texas Case
`
`construed many of the terms of the ‘978 Patent, including issuing three separate claim
`
`construction opinions. Those opinions are attached hereto as Exhibits 4-6. While this Court is not
`
`bound by the Texas Court’s claim constructions, the Texas Court’s findings and analysis is
`
`
`1 MASS contends that Humanscale infringes claims 16,17,18,19,20, 21, 22, 23, 24,25,26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,
`34, 35, 36, 37 of the ‘978 patent; claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27,
`28, 29, 30 of the ‘091 patent; claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18 of the ‘331 patent, and claims
`1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 of the ‘103 patent.
`1
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-00535-CMH-IDD Document 81 Filed 10/11/13 Page 7 of 37 PageID# 2060
`
`instructive, including because the court considered and rejected many of the meritless arguments
`
`that Humanscale makes here in support of its erroneous and/or improper claim constructions.
`
`LEGAL FRAMEWORK
`
`This Court has substantial experience with patent infringement cases and it need not be
`
`II.
`
`
`
`educated on the basics of claim construction. In general, the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in
`
`the Philips case provides the basic legal framework. see Phillips v. AWH, 415 F.3d 1303, 1312
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).) As to the means-plus-function (“MPF”) claims at issue in this case,
`
`see 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), their MPF elements cover the structure disclosed in the specification that
`
`performs and is clearly linked to the claimed function. See, e.g., Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB,
`
`, 344 F.3d 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`III. HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION TO THE GENERAL TECHNOLOGY AT
`ISSUE
`
`Figures 1, 2 and 4 of the ‘978 patent show front, side and top level views of one
`
`
`
`embodiment of multi-monitor display system, as follows:
`
`
`
`Here, “display system 10” includes a “base 12,” a pair of “displays 14, 16” mounted on “arm
`
`18,” and “upright 20” which associated with the “base 12” supports the “arm 18.” 978/2:22-27.2
`
`At a high level, and pertinent to the claims at issue in this proceeding, the ‘978 patent is
`
`generally directed to a display system comprising a base member, a pair of electronic displays;
`
`positioning means for positioning the displays, the positioning means comprising an arm
`
`assembly; support means for supporting the arm assembly from the base member; and mounting
`
`
`2 “978/2:22-27” refers to the ‘978 Patent, column 2 at lines 22-27. This citation format will be used throughout
`Mass’s brief to cite to the patents-in-suit.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-00535-CMH-IDD Document 81 Filed 10/11/13 Page 8 of 37 PageID# 2061
`
`means for mounting the displays to the arm assembly, the mounting means comprising means for
`
`adjusting the angular orientation of each of the displays relative to the arm assembly to thereby
`
`permit said displays to be angled toward each other to a desired degree. See, e.g., ‘978 patent,
`
`claim 16.
`
`At a high level, and pertinent to the claims at issue in this proceeding, the ‘091 patent is
`
`generally directed to a modularly configurable display system comprising a base structure; three
`
`or more detachable support arms, and coupling assemblies for securing display panels from the
`
`support arms.
`
`At a high level, and pertinent to the claims at issue in this proceeding, the ‘331 patent is
`
`generally directed to a display system comprising a base, a support column, a support arm
`
`structure secured to the support column, and connectors for connecting display housing portions
`
`at the backs of displays to the support arm, such that at least a part of the support column is
`
`disposed behind the displays, wherein the support arm is bowed at the front.
`
`At a high level, and pertinent to the claims at issue in this proceeding, the ‘103 patent is
`
`generally directed to a computer display support structure comprising a support member having a
`
`base, a column, an arm assembly, and mounting assembly for mounting the computer displays in
`
`various positions, including where the first and second displays are viewable from opposite sides
`
`and where the arm assembly is in retracted and extended configurations.
`
`IV. CONSTRUCTION OF THE DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS
`
`
`Arm3
`A.
`MASS: an elongate structure connected
`to and projecting from another structure
`
`Humanscale: part similar to a human arm, such as
`the projection from a central support in a machine
`
`
`
`The term “arm” has well understood meaning in the context of the ‘978, ‘091, ‘103 and
`
`‘331 Patents. An arm is an elongate structure connected to and projecting from another structure.
`
`3 ‘978 patent claims 16-18,20-23,25-28,31-33,35-38; (“arm” assembly); '091 patent claims 5, 9, 12-14, 16-17, 20,
`23-25; (support “arm”); and '331 patent claims 1, 5-6, 8-12, 14-18; '103 patent claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9,10, 12,15-16.
`(support “arm”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-00535-CMH-IDD Document 81 Filed 10/11/13 Page 9 of 37 PageID# 2062
`
`The use of this term throughout the claims of the patents-in-suit is consistent, and claim 16 of the
`
`‘978 patent is representative, wherein the positioning means includes an “arm” assembly for
`
`supporting the displays. Similarly, claim 5 of the ‘091 Patent and claim 1 of the ‘331 Patent
`
`require a support “arm.” Further, the specifications of the patents-in-suit provide examples of an
`
`arm. For example, Fig. 19 of the ‘978 Patent shows an arm 162 that when connected to upright
`
`158 projects therefrom:
`
`.
`
`Another example is Fig. 53 of the ‘091 Patent that shows multiple arms ARM 1, ARM 2
`
`and ARM 3. ARM 1 is connected to and projects from the column, whereas both ARM 2 and
`
`ARM 3 are connected to and project from ARM 1:
`
`. The ‘331 Patent
`
`also describes (e.g., in Fig. 3), a horizontal support arm 26 which may be connected to a vertical
`
`support column 24:
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-00535-CMH-IDD Document 81 Filed 10/11/13 Page 10 of 37 PageID# 2063
`
`The ‘978, ‘091, ‘331 and ‘103 patents are consistent in describing an arm as an elongate structure
`
`connected to and projecting from another structure.
`
`Humanscale’s proposed construction, which includes the phrase “a part like a human arm”
`
`is improperly narrow, including because a human arm projects from only one side of the torso,
`
`whereas in the patents-in-suit, arms may project from both sides of a structure to which the arm
`
`is connected. For example, in Figures 1-6 of the ‘978 patent, element 18, which is referred to as
`
`an “arm” (see, e.g., 978/3:20-44), projects from both sides of the central upright 20. Other
`
`examples from the patents in suit where an arm projects from both sides of a structure include
`
`arm 162 (Fig. 18 of the ‘978 patent), arm 20 (Fig. 4 of the ‘103 patent), arm 308 (Fig. 53 of the
`
`‘103 patent) and arm 26 (Fig. 2 of the ‘331 patent). In other instances in the patents-in-suit, an
`
`arm does extend from just one side of a structure, such as arm 110 or arm 112 in the ‘978 patent,
`
`and upright arm 96 (Fig. 18 of the ‘103 patent). This demonstrates that the term arm, as used in
`
`the context of the patents-in-suit, is broader than “a part similar to a human arm.” This reason
`
`alone is sufficient to reject Humanscale’s definition of arm.
`
`In addition, Humanscale’s unduly restrictive construction adds no clarity to an easily
`
`understood term and, in fact, only departs from the meaning of “arm” as understood in the
`
`context of the ‘978, ‘091, ‘103 and ‘331 patents. For instance, Humanscale provides no
`
`explanation of how “similar” to a human arm the patented invention must be. For instance,
`
`must a structure have an elbow, wrist and fingers to be “similar to a human arm”?
`
`Humanscale’s proposed construction adds no clarity in this regard. Similarly, there is no
`
`explanation or context of what a “projection from a central support in a machine” means.
`
`Depending on the type of machine and what constitutes its central support, “arm” could have a
`
`myriad of disparate and non-relevant meanings.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-00535-CMH-IDD Document 81 Filed 10/11/13 Page 11 of 37 PageID# 2064
`
`base/base member/base structure
`B.
`MASS: the lowermost portion of the system
`that engages a surface and that supports the
`arm assembly (978, 103), arms (091) or
`support arm structure (331) above the surface
`
`Humanscale: the lowermost portion of the
`system for resting on a work surface and that
`supports the arm assembly (978, 103), arms
`(091) or support arm structure (331) above the
`work surface
`
`Consistent with its use in the specification and the claims, the terms base, base member
`
`
`
`and base structure (which the parties agree should all have the same construction and will be
`
`referred to herein collectively as “base”) mean the lowermost portion of the system that engages
`
`a surface and that supports the arm assembly (‘978, ‘103), arms (‘091) or support arm structure
`
`(‘331) above the surface. See, e.g., ‘978/1:34-39; 2:24-27, 3:23-26, and Claims 1, 16 and 17;
`
`‘091/1:44-50, 6:10-14, 5:43-45, 12:61-62, and Claims 1, 5, 9, 12, 20 and 25; ‘331/3:11-12 and
`
`Claims 1 and 9; and ‘103/1:38-43, 5:29-31, 8:54-59, 14:31-34, 17:17-21 and Claim 1.
`
`Exemplary of this are base 12, 102 and 156 depicted in Figures 1-6 and 12 -18 and described in
`
`the specification of the ‘978 patent; bases 24, 88, 92, 192, 214, 302 depicted in Figures 1-5, 13,
`
`15, 18 -19A, 44-49, 51-64 and described in the specification of the ‘091 patent; base 22 depicted
`
`in Figures 1-5 and described in the specification of the ‘331 patent; and bases 24, 88, 92, 182,
`
`214, 302, 402, 502 and 802 depicted in Figures 1-5, 13, 15, 18-19, 44-47, 51-71, 73, 76, 79-
`
`81 and described in the specification of the ‘103 patent. The parties thus agree that a “base” is
`
`“the lowermost portion of the system … that supports the arm assembly (978, 103), arms (091)
`
`or support arm structure (331) above the … surface.” However, there are two disagreements.
`
`The first dispute to be resolved is Humanscale’s erroneous position a base requires a
`
`“work surface.” This argument was rejected by the Texas Court when it construed “base” (vis-à-
`
`vis the ‘978 patent only) as supporting arms above a “surface.” The ‘331 patent is the only one
`
`of the four that refers to a “work surface” in the specification. The ‘978 patent describes, depicts
`
`and claims that embodiments of a base disposed on a “horizontal surface.” See, e.g., ‘978/3:20-
`
`22 and Claim 17. The ‘331 patent similarly describes, depicts and claims that embodiments of
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-00535-CMH-IDD Document 81 Filed 10/11/13 Page 12 of 37 PageID# 2065
`
`the base are disposed on a “surface” or “horizontal surface” (see, e.g. claims 1, 9 and 11). The
`
`‘103 patent similarly describes, depicts and claims embodiments of the base disposed on a
`
`“horizontal surface” (see, e.g., Claim 5). See also 091/10:45-46 & 103/13:13-14 (“surface such
`
`as a table as illustrated in FIG. 29”). The foregoing is consistent with the ordinary meaning of
`
`base, for example, a “supporting part or layer; a foundation.”4
`
`Further, the doctrine of claim differentiation illustrates the error in Humanscale’s
`
`requirement. “Work surface” is specified in dependent claims 11, 15, 22 and 30 of the ‘091
`
`patent and claim 3 of the ‘331 patent. “Work surface” is what differentiates these dependent
`
`claims from their respective independent claims, and thus presumptively the independent claims
`
`do not require a “work surface,” otherwise these dependent claims would be superfluous.5
`
`Further, Humanscale’s “work surface” position would lead to nonsensical results. For
`
`example, “support means having a base for supporting the arm assembly above a support
`
`surface” is found in claims 17, 28, 31, 32, 37 of the ‘978 patent. Although these claims
`
`unambiguously specify a “support surface,” under Humanscale’s erroneous proposed
`
`construction, the “base” in the phrase would actually require a “work surface.”
`
`The second dispute to be resolved is Humanscale’s erroneous position that a “base”
`
`must be for “resting on” a surface. The correct phraseology is that a base “engages” a surface.
`
`Humanscale’s attempt to impose a “resting on” requirement on a base is an erroneous attempt
`
`to important a non-infringement argument in to the claims by requiring that an apparatus sit
`
`“motionless… without the exertion of force.” See Humanscale’s constructions of “rest[ing] on
`
`a ... surface” and “resting on a counter” below. However, the broad ordinary meaning of
`
`“base” does not require that an apparatus sit “motionless… without the exertion of force." The
`
`
`4 Base: A supporting part or layer; a foundation. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, at
`http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/base; Base: the bottom or supporting part of anything. Collins
`Dictionary at http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/base.
`5 See, e.g., Kara Technology v. Stamps.com, 582 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-00535-CMH-IDD Document 81 Filed 10/11/13 Page 13 of 37 PageID# 2066
`
`patentee did not redefine “base” in any manner that would demonstrate manifest exclusion or
`
`restriction that would represent a clear disavowal of claim scope. Further, Humanscale’s
`
`proposed construction requires a likely physically impossible condition. While an object sits
`
`motionless on a surface, forces exist that are exerted on and by the object. The surface exerts
`
`forces, which may include frictional forces, on the object, and the Earth also exerts a
`
`gravitational force on the object, including due to the mass of the arms and monitors being
`
`supported. In turn, the object exerts a net downward force on the surface.
`
`Humanscale’s attempt to impose this unwarranted limitation serves only to improperly
`
`narrow the plain and ordinary meaning of this easily understood term, and it lacks any
`
`meaningful support from intrinsic evidence or any possibly relevant extrinsic evidence.
`
`Further, the doctrine of claim differentiation illustrates the error in Humanscale’s
`
`position. The limitation of “rest[ing] on a ... surface” is specified in claims 11, 15, 22, 30;
`
`claims 3, 9, 11 of the ‘331 patent and claim 5 of the ‘103 patent. Further, “resting on a
`
`counter” is specified in claims 11 and 14 of the ‘103 patent.
`
`Finally, claims 19-20, 25, 29-30, 37-38 of the ‘978 patent specify “stand[ing] on [a/the]
`
`...surface.” Humanscale has no explanation for how a base simultaneously “rests” and “stands”.
`
`C.
`
`Each of the first computer display and the second computer display is capable of
`being more vertical than horizontal (‘103 Patent, claim 1)
`MASS: The angle between the horizontal plane
`Humanscale: the images of the first and
`and each of the planes on which the first and
`second computer displays are both capable of
`second display screens lie can take on at least
`tilting more than 45° up or down from the
`one value greater than 45 degrees and less than
`horizontal
`or equal to 90 degrees6
`Consistent with its use in the specification and the claims, the terms “each of the first
`
`computer display and the second computer display is capable of being more vertical than
`
`
`6 Alternatively, “(a) the angle between the plane of the first computer display and the horizontal plane can assume at
`least one value that is greater than 45° and less than or equal to 90°, and (b) the angle between the plane of the
`second computer display and the horizontal plane can assume at least one value that is greater than 45° and less than
`or equal to 90°”
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-00535-CMH-IDD Document 81 Filed 10/11/13 Page 14 of 37 PageID# 2067
`
`horizontal” means the angle between the horizontal plane and each of the planes on which the
`
`first and second display screens lie can take on at least one value greater than 45 degrees and less
`
`than or equal to 90 degrees. MASS’s construction is a condensed version of the explanation that
`
`the patentee gave to the PTO when he added this limitation:
`
`in both the first operating position and the second operating position each of
`the first computer display and the second computer display is capable of
`being more vertical than horizontal (for displays having flat panels, this
`means that in both the first operating position and the second operating
`position (a) the angle between the plane of the first computer display and the
`horizontal plane can assume at least one value in the interval (45°, 90°], and
`(b) the angle between the plane of the second computer display and the
`horizontal plane can assume at least one value in the interval (45°, 90°])
`
`Ex. 9; Excerpt from the File History of the ‘103 Patent at 10. For at least this reason, MASS’s
`
`construction reflects the actual meaning of this term.
`
`
`
`Humanscale’s definition is wrong because it requires that the displays be “capable of
`
`tilting…up or down.” There is no “tilting” requirement in the claim language and there is
`
`nothing in the specification or the file history that would require the imposition of such a
`
`limitation. The claim language only requires that each display “is capable of being more vertical
`
`than horizontal.” Therefore, a display such as display 192 shown in Fig. 45, would meet this
`
`limitation whether it could be tilted up or down, or if it was fixed in this angled orientation.
`
`
`
`Humanscale’s proposed construction would improperly exclude an embodiment wherein the
`
`screen was fixed in such an angled orientation because the display would not be “capable of
`
`tilting.” MASS has made no statements nor taken any actions that would require limiting the
`
`broad meaning of this term. Thus, it should be given the construction proposed by MASS.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-00535-CMH-IDD Document 81 Filed 10/11/13 Page 15 of 37 PageID# 2068
`
`extendable from a retracted configuration to an extended configuration ('103 pat. cl. 1)
`D.
`Humanscale: capable of telescoping to
`MASS: capable of being adjusted to increase
`adjust the distance between the monitors
`the distance between the ends of the arm
`assembly
`
`Consistent with its use in the specification and claims of the ‘103 Patent, the term
`
`“extendable from a retracted configuration to an extended configuration” means capable of
`
`being adjusted to increase the distance between the ends of the arm assembly. For example,
`
`claim 1, limitation (i) of the ‘103 patent states that “the arm assembly is extendable from a
`
`retracted configuration to an extended configuration, the distance between the one end [of the
`
`arm assembly] and the opposite end being greater in the extended configuration that in the
`
`retracted configuration.” This limitation makes it clear that the system includes a mechanism
`
`capable of transforming the arm assembly from a retracted configuration to an extended
`
`configuration by increasing the distance between the ends of the arm assembly. The
`
`specification of the ‘103 patent provides at least two examples of arm assemblies that are
`
`extendable from a retracted configuration to an extended configuration, illustrated in Figs. 44-49
`
`and Figs. 123-126.
`
`The phrase “capable of telescoping” in Humanscale’s myopic construction is too narrow
`
`for several reasons. First, it excludes a hinge mechanism (hinge 196) taught in the specification
`
`that allows the system to transform from a retracted configuration (Fig. 45) to an extended
`
`configuration (Fig. 47). Humanscale’s definition fixates on and imports limitations from
`
`another embodiment (e.g., a telescoping mechanism) taught in Figs. 44-48 and Figs 123-126.
`
`Second, Humanscale’s unduly restrictive construction merely imports limitations from
`
`the specification, namely, “enabl[ing] the upper support arm 188 to be extended (i.e.,
`
`telescoped) relative to the lower support arm 186.” (col. 14, lines 40-42) However, “[o]ne of
`
`the cardinal sins of patent law [is] reading a limitation from the written description into the
`
`claims.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1319-20 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Here,
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-00535-CMH-IDD Document 81 Filed 10/11/13 Page 16 of 37 PageID# 2069
`
`Humanscale improperly attempts to import the limitations of a single embodiment (i.e.,
`
`telescoping) into its proposed construction. However, the meaning of extendable in the context
`
`of the ‘103 patent is broader and, as described by the plain language of the claims, should
`
`include any configuration whereby the distance between the ends of the arm assembly may be
`
`increased. Certainly, telescoping is one way to accomplish this, but it is not the only way taught
`
`in the specification and the claims should not be limited to a single embodiment.
`
`In addition, claim 4 (which requires that the “arm that extends from the column is
`
`adapted to telescope”) further clarifies that the scope of claim 1 cannot be properly limited to
`
`only a telescoping arm as Humanscale proposes. The well-established doctrine of claim
`
`differentiation further illustrates the error of Humanscale’s position because Humanscale’s
`
`proposed construction would
`
`improperly render claim 4 superfluous.7 Accordingly,
`
`Humanscale’s proposed construction should be rejected.
`
`mounting portion (‘331 patent claims 1, 9)
`E.
`MASS: a portion of the support
`Humanscale: a protrusion from the support arm or vertical
`column used for mounting
`support column used to secure the arm to the column by
`insertion into a hollow recess in the other piece
`Consistent with its use in the claims and specification of the ‘331 Patent, a “mounting
`
`
`
`portion” is a portion of the support column used for mounting. Exemplary claim 1 states “a
`
`support column connected to the base and having a mounting portion extending in a vertical
`
`direction away from the base….” The parties agree that the mounting portion is associated with
`
`the support column, consistent with context provided by the language of claims 1 and 9 of the
`
`‘331 patent. As is often the case, here “[t]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as
`
`to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. For this reason, MASS’s
`
`construction is correct – nothing more is required to properly construe the term “mounting
`
`portion.” It is “a portion of the support column used for mounting.”
`
`
`7 See, e.g., Kara Technology v. Stamps.com, 582 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`11
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-00535-CMH-IDD Document 81 Filed 10/11/13 Page 17 of 37 PageID# 2070
`
`
`
`Humanscale again attempts to import limitations from specification into the claims.
`
`However, the patentee of the ‘331 Patent did not redefine this term in any manner that would
`
`demonstrate manifest exclusion or restriction and that would represent a clear disavowal of any
`
`claim scope. The word “portion” has an easily understandable, plain and ordinary meaning
`
`which is broad. Accordingly, it should be given its full ordinary meaning.
`
`Further, the doctrine of claim differentiation illustrates the error in Humanscale’s
`
`position. The claims do not use the terms “mounting member” and “mounting portion”
`
`interchangeably and, therefore, they should not be construed to have the same meaning as
`
`Humanscale erroneously suggests. In the context of the claims, the mounting member is part of
`
`the support arm and the mounting portion is part of the support column. Humanscale’s
`
`proposed construction fails to make this distinction.
`
`F.
`
`means for adjusting the angular orientation of each of the displays relative to the
`arm assembly to thereby permit said displays to be angled toward each other to a
`desired degree8
`
`MASS:
`Function: adjusting the angular orientation of
`each of the displays relative to the arm
`assembly to thereby permit said displays to be
`angled toward each other to a desired degree
`
`Structure: (1) ball 56, shaft 58, and socket 60,
`rear of the display 16 (see Figures 8 and 9),
`plus equivalents; or (2) ball 172, shaft 174,
`socket 170, rear of the display 152 (see Figure
`20), plus equivalents.9
`
`Humanscale:
`[AGREED]
`
`Structure: Embodiment 1 ball 56, vertical
`projections 66 extending from ball 56, horizontal
`projections 68 extending from ball 56, socket 60,
`vertically registered slots 62 formed in socket 60,
`and horizontally registered slots 64 formed in
`socket 60 (Figures 8 and 9) OR Embodiment 2
`ball 172, projections 180 extending from ball 172,
`socket 170, and slots 178 formed in socket 170
`(Figure 20)
`
`
`This phrase is a MPF claim limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). MPF elements cover
`
`the structure disclosed in the specification that performs and is clearly linked to the claimed
`
`
`8 ‘978 patent claims 16-18, 25, 27-28, 35, 37-38.
`9 Alternatively: Structure: A joint having a first portion supported from the arm assembly connected to a second
`portion supported from the rear of the display, the joint providing an axis of rotation behind the display allowing the
`second joint portion to pivot about the axis, and all equivalents.
`12
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-00535-CMH-IDD Document 81 Filed 10/11/13 Page 18 of 37 PageID# 2071
`
`function.10 The parties agree that the disclosed function, as clearly set forth in the claim, is
`
`“adjusting the angular orientation of each of the displays relative to the arm assembly to thereby
`
`permit said displays to be angled toward each other to a desired degree.” However, the parties
`
`disagree about the structure that performs the function.
`
`As an initial matter, the Texas Court identified the structure for performing the identified
`
`function as follows: “Structure: ball 56, shaft 58, and socket 60, plus equivalents (Figures 8