`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`RIDDELL, INC.,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`KRANOS CORPORATION d/b/a SCHUTT
`)
`SPORTS,
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`-------------------------------------------------------------- )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`RIDDELL, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`XENITH, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`)
`
`
`Case No. 16 C 4496
`
`Case No. 16 C 4498
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`MATTHEW F. KENNELLY, District Judge:
`
`
`
`Riddell has sued Kranos Corporation—doing business and referred to here as
`
`Schutt Sports—and Xenith, LLC, alleging that the two companies are infringing three of
`
`Riddell's patents for football helmets. Both defendants have filed motions for claim
`
`construction. The parties submitted written briefs, and the Court held a claim
`
`construction hearing on May 19, 2017. This opinion sets forth the Court's construction
`
`of disputed claim language.1
`
`
`1 Riddell's suit against Xenith, Case No. 16 C 4498, is assigned to Judge Thomas
`Durkin. The undersigned judge is presiding over pretrial proceedings in the two cases
`
`Riddell Exhibit 2007
`Kranos Corp. v. Riddell, Inc.
`IPR2016-01646
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-04498 Document #: 55 Filed: 05/24/17 Page 2 of 39 PageID #:319
`
`Background
`
`Riddell manufactures and sells football equipment including helmets. The
`
`
`
`company owns two patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 8,528,118 and 8,938,818—both of which
`
`are titled "Sports Helmet." Both patents relate generally to a protective helmet with a
`
`plastic shell and a raised central band that adds strength and rigidity to the helmet
`
`without requiring additional material and therefore without adding additional weight. The
`
`helmets also allow for the placement of vent openings on the shell to provide ventilation.
`
`The '118 patent was issued in September 2013, and it was reexamined and amended in
`
`September 2014. Am. J.A. in Supp. of Cl. Constr. Br. (JA) 24. The application for the
`
`'818 patent was issued in January 2015 as a continuation of the '118 patent. JA722.
`
`The parties therefore largely focus their analyses on the language in the '118 patent.
`
`
`
`Riddell also owns a patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,813,269, directed at a particular
`
`type of faceguard for its football helmets and titled "Sports Helmet with Quick-Release
`
`Faceguard Connector and Adjustable Internal Pad Element." JA2080. Riddell's design
`
`is intended to decrease the time it requires to remove the faceguard from a football
`
`helmet by eliminating the "laborious process of unscrewing a threaded fastener." Pl.
`
`Riddell, Inc.'s Responsive Cl. Constr. Br. (Pl.'s Resp. to Schutt) at 3. The application for
`
`the '269 patent was filed in April 2008, and the patent was issued in August 2014.
`
`
`
`Both defendants also manufacture and sell sports helmets. Riddell claims that
`
`Schutt's line of Vengeance football helmets infringe claims 1, 5–6, 11–13, 25, 30, 32–
`
`34, and 36 of the '118 patent and claims 1–3, 5–6, 8–12, 40–42, 49–50, 53, 56–58, 60–
`
`
`pursuant to an order entered by the district's Executive Committee under N.D. Ill.
`Internal Operating Procedure 13(e).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-04498 Document #: 55 Filed: 05/24/17 Page 3 of 39 PageID #:320
`
`61, and 65 of the '818 patent. Pl.'s Resp. to Schutt at 2. Riddell also claims that this
`
`line of helmets, as well as other models, infringe claims 1, 3–9, 13–20, and 22–23 of the
`
`'269 patent. Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos Corp., No. 16 C 4496, Compl. ¶¶ 40–51. Riddell
`
`claims that Xenith manufactures helmets that infringe claims 1–2, 5–6, 11–13, 25–28,
`
`30, and 32–37 of the '118 patent and claims 41–49, 51–52, 58, and 62–65 of the '818
`
`patent. Riddell, Inc. v. Xenith, LLC, No. 16 C 4498, Compl. ¶¶ 8–35. Riddell does not
`
`claim that Xenith is infringing the '269 patent.
`
`
`
`Both defendants have requested construction of a number of terms appearing
`
`within these three patents; Riddell argues in most instances that the terms do not
`
`require construction. For the most part, defendants request construction of the same
`
`phrases and propose virtually identical constructions. There are some variations, in
`
`which either 1) only a single defendant proposes construction of a particular phrase; 2)
`
`defendants argue instead that the phrase is invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112;
`
`or 3) a defendant both offers a construction and argues in the alternative that the phrase
`
`is indefinite.
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the '118 patent is largely representative of the disputed language in
`
`both the '118 patent and the '818 patent:
`
`A football helmet comprising:
`a plastic shell configured to receive a head of a wearer of the helmet, the
`shell having:
`
`a front region,
`
`a crown region,
`
`a rear region,
`
`two side regions wherein each side region has an ear flap with an
`
`
`ear opening,
`
`a raised central band integrally formed as part of the shell and
`
`
`extending across the crown region to the rear region,
`
`a first plurality of vent openings formed in the shell outside of the
`
`
`raised central band, wherein the first plurality of vent
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-04498 Document #: 55 Filed: 05/24/17 Page 4 of 39 PageID #:321
`
`openings are aligned, and positioned along a first side of the
`
`
`raised central band; and
`
`
`a chin strap assembly that releasably secures the helmet to the wearer.
`
`JA24, 1:24–40.
`
`
`
`Only Schutt requests construction of the '269 patent. This patent discloses "an
`
`improved sports helmet including a quick release connector assembly for the faceguard
`
`that allows for rapid disconnection of the faceguard from the helmet shell." JA2080.
`
`Claim 1 of the '269 patent discloses:
`
`A sports helmet comprising:
`a shell;
`a faceguard;
`a faceguard connector assembly having a bracket with at least one
`
`channel that receives an extent of the faceguard, the faceguard
`
`connector assembly further having a releasable coupler mechanism
`
`that extends through both the bracket and an opening in the shell to
`
`secure the faceguard to the shell in a use position, the releasable
`
`coupler mechanism including:
`
`
`a washer having a main body that extends substantially
`
`
`perpendicular from a flange of the washer, the main body
`
`
`having a central opening and extending into and positioned
`
`
`within the shell opening;
`
`a cylindrical body that extends through the bracket and the shell
`
`
`opening, wherein an extent of the cylindrical body is received
`
`
`by the central opening of the washer in the use position; and
`
`a head positioned within the bracket, the head configured to receive
`
`
`a tool that applies an actuation force; and
`wherein the actuation force is applied to the coupler mechanism to move
`
`the coupler mechanism from the use position to a disconnected
`
`position that allows for removal of the bracket from the shell to
`
`permit the faceguard to be displaced with respect to the shell.
`
`JA2095, 9:21–46. Claim 2 discloses "[t]he sports helmet of claim 1, wherein the
`
`application of the actuation force lacks a rotational component." Id, 9:47–48.
`
`
`
`The Court analyzes the disputed terms in the sequence listed by the parties in
`
`their joint claim construction chart and status report. Dkt. no. 130. Because each
`
`disputed phrase often has three proposed constructions—or at least three separate
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-04498 Document #: 55 Filed: 05/24/17 Page 5 of 39 PageID #:322
`
`arguments—the Court will not list each one here, but instead will do so at the beginning
`
`of the section of the analysis discussing each phrase. These proposed constructions
`
`are taken from the joint claim construction chart and status report that the parties filed
`
`with the Court. See dkt. no. 130. The parties differentiate between phrases for which
`
`defendants propose a particular claim construction and phrases that defendants
`
`contend are indefinite. Under the parties' organization, a phrase is in the latter category
`
`even if one of the defendants has proposed a particular construction. For the sake of
`
`consistency, the Court organizes its analysis in the same way.
`
`Discussion
`
`
`
`Claim construction begins with the words of the claim itself. Takeda Pharm Co.
`
`Ltd. v. Zydus Pharm. USA, Inc., 743 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The terms used
`
`in the claims bear a "heavy presumption that they mean what they say and have the
`
`ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those words by persons skilled in the
`
`relevant art." Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). The ordinary meaning is the one derived from
`
`reading the claims in the context of the specification and prosecution history. Starhome
`
`GmbH v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 743 F.3d 849, 856 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Because of this, the
`
`specification is "the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." Power
`
`Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2013). The specification may reveal a particular definition given to a term by the
`
`patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`The prosecution history also "provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-04498 Document #: 55 Filed: 05/24/17 Page 6 of 39 PageID #:323
`
`understood the patent." Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 713 F.3d 1090, 1905
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2013). This history, however, "often lacks the clarity of the specification and
`
`thus is less useful for claim construction purposes." AIA Eng'g Ltd. v. Magotteaux Int'l
`
`S/A, 657 F.3d 1264, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`
`
`There are two exceptions to the general rule that claim terms are given their
`
`ordinary meaning: "1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own
`
`lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in
`
`the specification or during prosecution." Starhome, 743 F.3d at 856. Disavowal of
`
`claim scope can occur either through amendment to the claims or arguments made
`
`during prosecution of the patent. Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 2017 WL 1946961,
`
`at *4 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2017). Regardless, any disavowal must be clear and
`
`unmistakable. Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co., 593 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015). Ambiguous statements will not suffice. Id.
`
`
`
`A.
`
`"Raised central band"
`
`Disputed Term or Phrase
`
`raised central band
`
`Schutt's Proposal
`a segment that is raised
`with respect to the shell,
`has a width defined by a
`pair of opposed side walls,
`and includes lower side
`portions that extend from
`the rear region towards
`the side regions of the
`shell to terminate near the
`ear openings in the shell.
`
`alternatively, invalid under
`35 U.S.C. § 112 as
`lacking a written
`description and / or non-
`enabled
`
`Xenith's Proposal
`
`Riddell's Proposal
`
`same as Schutt
`
`plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`Defendants ask the Court to construe the phrase "raised central band" as
`
`
`
`indicated above. In doing so, defendants appear to divide their arguments between
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-04498 Document #: 55 Filed: 05/24/17 Page 7 of 39 PageID #:324
`
`whether the phrase includes the limitation "raised with respect to the shell" and whether
`
`the phrase includes the remaining limitations in the above proposal. Schutt also argues,
`
`in the alternative, that the phrase is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §112. Riddell asks the
`
`Court to give the phrase the plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Proposed construction
`
`The Court agrees with Riddell that this phrase should be given its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning. The meaning of the phrase "raised central band" would be readily
`
`apparent to a lay juror—not to mention a person skilled in the art of designing protective
`
`sportswear—and therefore does not require further construction by the Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`
`
`
`The limitations "a width defined by a pair of opposed side
`walls" and "lower side portions that extend from the rear
`region towards the side regions of the shell to terminate near
`the ear openings in the shell"
`
`Schutt argues primarily that each time the raised central band is discussed in the
`
`two patents, it is described as having a width defined by a pair of opposed side walls
`
`and lower side portions that extend from the rear region to the side regions of the shell.
`
`Both of these features are listed in the abstract's description of the central band:
`
`The shell also includes a raised central band that extends from the front
`region across the crown to the rear region. The central band has lower
`side portions that extend from the rear region towards the side region of
`the shell and terminate proximate an ear opening in the shell. The central
`band has a width defined by a pair of opposed sidewalls that extend
`transversely from an outer surface of the shell.
`
`JA1 (emphasis added). The specification also discusses these features in the detailed
`
`description section. The specification indicates that "[t]he band 63 has a width defined
`
`by a pair of opposed sidewalls 63a that extend outward or transversely from the outer
`
`surface of the shell 31." JA17, 6:20-22. It goes on to state that the "band 53 also has
`
`opposed lower side portions 63b, wherein each side portion 63b extends from the rear
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-04498 Document #: 55 Filed: 05/24/17 Page 8 of 39 PageID #:325
`
`region 40 to a lower portion of the ear flap 32 and terminates proximate the ear opening
`
`112." Id., 6:24–27. Schutt argues that because these are the only two discussions of
`
`the raised central band, the patentees defined the phrase to include these limitations.
`
`Kranos Corp. D/B/A Schutt Sports' Opening Cl. Constr. Br. (Schutt's Br.) at 8.
`
`
`
`But these statements are insufficient to indicate that the patentees acted as their
`
`own lexicographers and redefined the meaning of "raised central band." First, the
`
`doctrine of claim differentiation creates a presumption that these limitations should not
`
`be imparted into the claim language. This doctrine "stems from the common sense
`
`notion that different words or phrases used in separate claims are presumed to indicate
`
`that the claims have different meanings or scope." Seachange Int'l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc.,
`
`413 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus when
`
`limitations are expressly included in one claim, a rebuttable presumption arises that
`
`those limitations are not encompassed by different language in different claims. This
`
`rule has its strongest application "where the limitation sought to be read into an
`
`independent claim already appears in a dependent claim," but it also applies to two
`
`independent claims using different language. Id. at 1368–69 (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted).
`
`
`
`Riddell points to numerous instances where the language that Schutt proposes
`
`exists in other claims in the '118 and '818 patents:
`
`• claims 25 and 34 of the '118 patent and claims 1, 5, 14, and 19 of the '818 patent
`define the band as "having a width defined by a pair of opposed side walls,"
`JA24–25, 743–44;
`
`• claims 3 and 18 of the '118 patent—both dependent claims—define the band as
`having "lower side portions . . . wherein each lower side portions extends from
`the rear region of the shell towards the ear flap region of the shell," JA21–22; and
`
`• claims 4 and 7 of the '118 patent and claims 45 and 48 of the '818 patent—all
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-04498 Document #: 55 Filed: 05/24/17 Page 9 of 39 PageID #:326
`
`dependent claims—define the band as having a lower side portion that
`"terminates proximate the ear opening in the ear flap," JA21, 745.
`
`Thus the language of these claims creates a rebuttable presumption that the phrase
`
`"raised central band," when used by itself as it is in claim 1, does not include these
`
`limitations.
`
`
`
`This presumption, however, is not "a hard and fast rule of construction," and it
`
`cannot be used to broaden claims beyond their proper scope as determined via the
`
`specification and the prosecution history. Seachange, 413 F.3d at 1369. Schutt argued
`
`at the hearing that, because the patentees frequently used the phrase "present
`
`invention" when discussing these features, they narrowed the meaning of the phrase to
`
`require these features. Schutt's Br. at 9 n.11. The patentees begin the abstract by
`
`stating that the "present invention provides a protective sports helmet" and then goes on
`
`to list features of the invention, including some of the limitations that Schutt proposes to
`
`include in the interpretation of the "raised central band" language. The patentees also
`
`use the phrase "present invention" when describing certain figures in the patent. For
`
`example, the specification states that "FIG. 19 is a side view of the helmet of the
`
`present invention, illustrating the chin protector connector of the football helmet of Fig.
`
`1A." JA16, 4:42–44. The Federal Circuit has occasionally found the phrase "present
`
`invention" to narrow claim scope, but this typically occurs where the patentee uses the
`
`phrase consistently when discussing a particular limitation. See, e.g., Absolute
`
`Software, Inc. v. Stealth Signal, Inc., 659 F.3d 1121, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The court in
`
`Absolute Software went on to indicate that the phrase does not always impart limitations
`
`where the references are not uniform or where other aspects of the intrinsic evidence do
`
`not support applying the limitation to the entire patent. Id.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-04498 Document #: 55 Filed: 05/24/17 Page 10 of 39 PageID #:327
`
`
`
`Such is the case here. The patentees' use of the phrase "present invention" is
`
`not sufficiently uniform to justify imparting these limitations into the claim language. The
`
`abstract is the only location in which the phrase "present invention" could be construed
`
`as expressly referencing those features. In each of the figure descriptions using this
`
`phrase, the patentees do not mention the limitations advanced by Schutt. Instead,
`
`these figure descriptions each focus on a different aspect of the invention. See JA16,
`
`3:63–64 (describing the figure as "showing a face guard of the present invention"); Id,
`
`3:66–67 (same); Id, 4:26–28 (describing the figure as "showing a crown pad in
`
`accordance with the present invention"); Id, 4:42–44 (describing the figure as "the
`
`present invention, illustrating the chin protector connector"). Thus the patent does not
`
`consistently include these features when it describes what the "present invention" is,
`
`and therefore use of the phrase does not narrow the meaning of "raised central band."
`
`
`
`Schutt argues that each these figures portrays a raised central band that
`
`contains its proposed limitations and therefore that the claim scope must be narrowed in
`
`this way. But the fact that one embodiment depicts a particular limitation does not mean
`
`that this limitation can be imparted to the claim as a whole. The Federal Circuit has
`
`repeatedly indicated that claims are not limited "merely because the embodiments in the
`
`specification all contain a particular feature." C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388
`
`F.3d 858, 865 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Schutt has not persuaded the Court that these
`
`limitations must be read into the claim language.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`
`The limitation "a segment that is raised with respect to the
`shell"
`
`Schutt also argues that the phrase "raised central band" includes the limitation
`
`that the band is "a segment that is raised with respect to the shell." First, Riddell notes
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-04498 Document #: 55 Filed: 05/24/17 Page 11 of 39 PageID #:328
`
`that Schutt did not disclose this proposed limitation during the claim construction
`
`exchange process as required under Local Patent Rule 4.1 and implies that Schutt has
`
`waived this argument. Pl.'s Resp. to Schutt at 5 n.6. The Federal Circuit grants district
`
`courts broad discretion in the enforcement of local patent rules. Allvoice Devs. US, LLC
`
`v. Microsoft Corp., 612 F. App'x 1009, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Court finds that
`
`Schutt has not waived the ability to argue this limitation.2
`
`
`
`Schutt first argues that the limitation is supported by the claim language because
`
`claim 25 of the '118 patent discloses "a raised central band integrally formed in the
`
`shell." JA24, 2:42; see Schutt's Br. at 9. This phrase does not support Schutt's
`
`proposed construction, as it does not provide any more detail than what already exists
`
`in the claim language itself. This phrase contains the words "raised central band"—i.e.
`
`the precise phrase the Court is being asked to construe. And the remainder of the
`
`phrase—"integrally formed in the shell"—is a disputed phrase for which Schutt proposes
`
`an entirely different construction later in its brief. Therefore this language does not
`
`indicate how the Court should construe the disputed phrase.
`
`
`
`Schutt next contends that the prosecution history supports a construction of
`
`"raised central band" that indicates it is "raised with respect to the shell." At one point
`
`during examination, the Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) rejected a number of claims
`
`in the '118 patent as anticipated by prior art known as the Schneider reference because
`
`that patent also disclosed a raised central band. The '118 patentees responded that the
`
`"firm section 20 extending across the top of Schneider's shell 14 cannot be construed
`
`
`2 Riddell makes this same argument in response to a number of other limitations
`proposed by defendants. The Court will likewise address these arguments on their
`merits and will not find that defendants have waived them.
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-04498 Document #: 55 Filed: 05/24/17 Page 12 of 39 PageID #:329
`
`as the claimed raised central band because it is not, in fact raised with respect to the
`
`shell 14. Instead, the firm section 20 is flush with the adjacent resilient sections 22 that
`
`flank the firm section 20 of the shell 14." JA584. The patentees argued essentially that
`
`the Schneider invention consisted of a helmet with a smooth shell containing no bumps
`
`or protrusions. Id. This history does suggest that the raised central band is raised with
`
`respect to the shell. But the Court fails to see how this differs from the plain and
`
`ordinary meaning of the phrase as written and thus finds it unnecessary to construe the
`
`claim further.
`
`
`
`Schutt argues that relying on the "plain and ordinary meaning" of a phrase
`
`without construing it violates federal law. Kranos Corp. D/B/A Schutt Sports'
`
`Responsive Cl. Constr. Br. (Schutt's Reply) at 1. The Federal Circuit has indicated that
`
`when parties present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim term, it is
`
`the court's duty to resolve it. Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc.,
`
`815 F.3d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The court in Eon indicated that a determination
`
`that a claim term "has the plain and ordinary meaning may be inadequate when a term
`
`has more than one ordinary meaning or when reliance on a term's ordinary meaning
`
`does not resolve the parties' dispute." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The
`
`Federal Circuit has also indicated, however, that cases exist in which "the ordinary
`
`meaning of claim language 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." O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond
`
`Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Court finds this
`
`to be one of those cases. The ordinary meaning of "raised central band" is readily
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-04498 Document #: 55 Filed: 05/24/17 Page 13 of 39 PageID #:330
`
`apparent to persons skilled in the relevant art. Thus it is unnecessary to adopt
`
`defendants' construction.
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`Defendants also argue that the patents at issue do not describe "what the band is
`
`raised in relation to" and therefore that claims including this phrase are invalid as
`
`indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Xenith's Br. at 15. In support, Xenith points to the
`
`same prosecution history discussed above, in which the patentees distinguished prior
`
`art by stating that the band in that case was "not, in fact, raised with respect to the
`
`shell." JA584. Xenith argues that the public is entitled to rely on this statement but that
`
`doing so leads to a nonsensical result. According to Xenith, because some of the
`
`claims at issue state that the raised central band is "formed as part of the shell," the
`
`band would have to be raised with respect to itself. Xenith's Br. at 15–16. Xenith
`
`argues that because the public has no standard for determining whether the band
`
`meets this criterion, the claims are indefinite.
`
`
`
`The Court finds that this phrase is not indefinite. The standard for indefiniteness
`
`is whether "a patent's claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history,
`
`inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable
`
`certainty." Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). As
`
`discussed above, the phrase "raised central band" has a plain and ordinary meaning
`
`that would be evident to a person skilled in the relevant art. This plain meaning is
`
`supported by statements in the prosecution history, such as when the patentees
`
`distinguished prior art by indicating that the band in that invention was "flush with
`
`adjacent resilient sections." JA584.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-04498 Document #: 55 Filed: 05/24/17 Page 14 of 39 PageID #:331
`
`
`
`The Court concludes that the phrase "raised central band" has its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning and is not otherwise indefinite.
`
`B.
`
`"A width defined by a pair of opposed side walls"
`
`Xenith's Proposal
`
`Riddell's Proposal
`
`none
`
`plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`Disputed Term or Phrase
`
`a width defined by a pair
`of opposed side walls
`
`Schutt's Proposal
`having/has two walls with
`outer surfaces that always
`face away from each other
`to create a single width or
`distance from outer wall
`surface to outer wall surface
`at any given point along the
`length of [the raised central
`band] as the outer wall
`surfaces extend
`continuously and
`uninterrupted in a
`longitudinal direction from
`the front to the back of the
`shell
`
`alternatively, invalid under
`35 U.S.C. § 112 as lacking
`written description and / or
`non-enabled
`
`Schutt next asks the Court to construe the phrase "a width defined by a pair of
`
`
`
`opposed side walls" as indicated above. As Riddell points out, Schutt's proposed
`
`construction of this phrase appears to be an attempt "to exclude sidewalls that are not
`
`oriented in a straight line (such as the general zig-zag configuration of Schutt's side
`
`walls)." Pl.'s Resp. to Schutt at 14. In doing so, Schutt again argues that language in
`
`the specification supports imparting these limitations into the claim language.
`
`
`
`The Court again concludes that this phrase can be construed simply by adopting
`
`its plain and ordinary meaning. Terms such as "pair," "width," "opposed," and "side
`
`walls" have meanings that are readily apparent to a person skilled in the art and do not
`
`require additional construction by this Court. Further, the additions proposed by
`
`Schutt—such as "with outer surfaces that always face away from each other"—are
`
`more likely to confuse rather than clarify the meaning of the claim language, as the
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-04498 Document #: 55 Filed: 05/24/17 Page 15 of 39 PageID #:332
`
`Court itself is still unsure of what Schutt intends these phrases to mean. The same is
`
`true for the phrase "to create a single width or distance from outer wall surface to outer
`
`wall surface." The Court reads this proposed construction to require the raised central
`
`band to have the same width as it proceeds along the shell of the helmet. If this were
`
`the case, Schutt's construction would exclude embodiments clearly depicted in the '118
`
`patent, in which the raised central band widens as it approaches the rear of the helmet.
`
`When questioned about this at the hearing, Schutt stated that its construction does not
`
`exclude these embodiments and that "single width" here does not mean the same width
`
`across the shell. The Court fails to see how this can possibly be so given the ordinary
`
`meaning of the terms used in Schutt's proposed construction. The bottom line is that
`
`the Court sees no basis to adopt Schutt's convoluted and confusing definition of a
`
`phrase that has a readily apparent plain meaning.
`
`
`
`Further, the specification itself does not indicate that the patentees defined the
`
`phrase to have a scope narrower than this plain meaning. Schutt points to two
`
`statements that are in both the abstract and the specification. The first statement that
`
`Schutt cites indicates that the central band "extends from the front region across the
`
`crown to the rear region." Schutt's Br. at 10; JA1; see also JA17, 6:16–17. But this
`
`statement does not indicate that, as Schutt proposes, the band (or, really, its borders)
`
`must be continuous and uninterrupted—that is, without zigs and zags—which is what
`
`Schutt proposes. The second statement that Schutt cites from the specification is that
`
`the central band "has a width defined by a pair of opposed sidewalls." Schutt's Br. at
`
`10; JA1; see also JA17, 6:20–21. But this phrase is identical to the language in the
`
`claim; it does not suggest an additional limitation that the walls have outer surfaces that
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-04498 Document #: 55 Filed: 05/24/17 Page 16 of 39 PageID #:333
`
`always face away from each other or that the wall has a single width at any given point.
`
`In sum, the language of the specification that Schutt cites does not support its proposed
`
`construction.
`
`
`
`Schutt next argues that the claims themselves support its proposed construction
`
`because the language of the claims is consistent with the limitations that it proposes.
`
`Schutt points first to the numerous instances in the claims where the patent uses
`
`phrases such as "extending across the crown region to the rear region," "extends from
`
`the front region across the crown region to the rear region," and "extending between the
`
`crown region and the rear region." Schutt's Br. at 11–12. Schutt argues that this
`
`language is consistent with a construction that the sidewalls extend continuously and
`
`uninterrupted from the front to the rear of the shell. But the fact that the claims may be
`
`consistent with a limitation does not require reading that limitation into the claim
`
`language. See C.R. Bard, 388 F.3d at 865. Although the claims as written cover
`
`embodiments that contain that limitation, they may also encompass embodiments that
`
`do not. Schutt makes an identical argument for its limitation that the walls must "always
`
`face away from each other to form a single width," based on the patent's use of phrases
`
`such as "along a first side of the raised central band," "along a first side wall of the
`
`raised second band," and "the side wall." Schutt's Br. at 12. This argument fails for the
`
`same reason. The language that Schutt cites does not require that the walls always
`
`form a single width. And although the claim language discloses embodiments that
`
`adhere to Schutt's construction, the language is not so restrictive as to be limited to only
`
`those embodiments.
`
`The Court therefore declines to construe this phrase beyond its plain and
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:16-cv-04498 Document #: 55 Filed: 05/24/17 Page 17 of 39 PageID #:334
`
`ordinary meaning.
`
`C.
`
`"Integrally formed"
`
`Disputed Term or Phrase
`
`Schutt's Proposal
`
`Xenith's Proposal
`
`integrally formed
`
`constructed or attached
`together as a single or
`integrated unit
`
`one or more pieces fixed or
`attache