throbber
Case: 1:16-cv-04498 Document #: 55 Filed: 05/24/17 Page 1 of 39 PageID #:318
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket