Case 3:16-cv-00012 Document 173 Filed in TXSD on 07/09/18 Page 1 of 37
`United States District Court
`Southern District of Texas
`ENTERED
`July 09, 2018
`David J. Bradley, Clerk
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`GALVESTON DIVISION
`
`
`SANDBOX LOGISTICS LLC, et al,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`VS.
`
`GRIT ENERGY SOLUTIONS LLC, et al,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-12
`
`§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:17-CV-589
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`On March 1, 2018, the Court held a Markman hearing at which the parties
`
`proposed meanings for several terms that are used in the patents at issue in this litigation
`
`and that the parties have asked the Court to construe. See Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996) (“[T]he construction of a patent, including
`
`terms of art within its claim, is exclusively within the province of the court.”). The parties
`
`have also filed thorough and well-written briefing. Having carefully considered the
`
`parties’ arguments, the evidence, and the applicable law, the Court construes the disputed
`
`claim terms as stated below. For the sake of clarity, the plaintiffs will be referred to
`
`collectively as “Sandbox,” and the defendants will be referred to collectively as “Grit.”
`
`I.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD GOVERNING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The claims of a patent define the scope of the patented invention and function to
`
`forbid “not only exact copies of an invention, but products that go to the heart of an
`
`invention [while avoiding] the literal language of the claim by making a noncritical
`
`change.” Id. at 373–74 (citations and quotation marks omitted). Claim construction is “a
`
`1 / 37
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00012 Document 173 Filed in TXSD on 07/09/18 Page 2 of 37
`
`way of elaborating the normally terse claim language in order to understand and explain,
`
`but not to change, the scope of the claims.” Embrex, Inc. v. Service Engineering Corp.,
`
`216 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (brackets and quotation marks omitted).
`
`Claim construction requires a determination as to how a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the relevant art would understand a claim term in the context of the entire patent,
`
`including the specification and prosecution history, at the time of invention. Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “There is a heavy presumption
`
`that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Aventis Pharm.
`
`Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “Properly viewed, the
`
`‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the
`
`entire patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321.
`
`The Court begins its analysis by considering the language of the claims themselves
`
`but must keep in mind that “claims must be read in view of the specification, of which
`
`they are a part.” Id. at 1314–15 (quotation marks omitted). The specification, being “the
`
`single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term[,]” is “always highly relevant to the
`
`claim construction analysis” and will “usually” be “dispositive[.]” Id. at 1315. The Court
`
`should also consider the patent’s prosecution history, if that history is in evidence. Id. at
`
`1317. The prosecution history “represents an ongoing negotiation between the [Patent
`
`and Trademark Office] and the applicant” and, as a result, “often lacks the clarity of the
`
`specification[;]” but, nevertheless, it “can often inform the meaning of the claim language
`
`by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor
`
`limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than
`
`2 / 37
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00012 Document 173 Filed in TXSD on 07/09/18 Page 3 of 37
`
`it would otherwise be.” Id. Put another way, “[t]he best source for understanding a
`
`technical term is the specification from which it arose, informed, as needed, by the
`
`prosecution history.” Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1478
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1998). The Court may also rely on “extrinsic” evidence, which is defined as
`
`“all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor
`
`testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises[;]” but extrinsic evidence is generally seen
`
`“as less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
`
`claim terms[.]” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317–18 (quotation marks omitted).
`
`With respect to many of the claim terms at issue, Sandbox calls for the Court to
`
`construe the terms in accordance with their “plain and ordinary meaning[s.]” Sandbox
`
`highlights the Federal Circuit’s statement that “the specification and prosecution history
`
`[of a patent] only compel departure from the plain meaning [of a term] in two instances:
`
`lexicography and disavowal.” GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d
`
`1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). A district court must apply an “exacting” standard in
`
`determining whether a patentee has acted as its own lexicographer or limited its claims by
`
`disavowal (which is sometimes referred to as “disclaimer”). Id. Lexicography requires a
`
`clear expression by the patentee of an intent to define the claim term, while a
`
`determination of disavowal (or disclaimer) requires a clear indication by the specification
`
`or prosecution history that the invention does not include a particular feature. Id.
`
`However, “clear,” the Federal Circuit has noted, does not always mean “explicit.” Trs. of
`
`Columbia Univ. in City of N. Y. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(“Our case law does not require explicit redefinition or disavowal.”).
`
`3 / 37
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00012 Document 173 Filed in TXSD on 07/09/18 Page 4 of 37
`
`Grit counters Sandbox’s “plain and ordinary meaning” arguments by contending
`
`that the relevant patents’ specifications and prosecution histories demonstrate that
`
`Sandbox did in fact limit its claims by “describ[ing] its invention narrowly in the patent
`
`specifications and during the prosecution of its applications” in order “[t]o obtain patent
`
`protection over a crowded field” (Dkt. 111 at p. 9).1 Sandbox’s claim construction
`
`proposals, Grit’s argument continues, are an impermissible attempt “to expand the scope
`
`of [Sandbox’s patent] protection by proposing undefined ‘plain and ordinary meanings’
`
`of terms” (Dkt. 111 at p. 9) (some brackets omitted). The Federal Circuit has indeed
`
`emphasized that the doctrine of disavowal exists to prevent a patentee from unfairly
`
`broadening its patent protection once a patent has been secured. Aylus Networks, Inc. v.
`
`Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Ultimately, the doctrine of
`
`prosecution disclaimer ensures that claims are not construed one way in order to obtain
`
`their allowance and in a different way against accused infringers.”) (quotation marks
`
`omitted).
`
`II.
`
`THE PATENTS AT ISSUE
`
`Four patents form the basis of this litigation. Those patents deal with containers
`
`for and methods of storing, transporting, and unloading proppant in hydraulic fracturing
`
`operations. The patent numbers at issue are: 9,296,518 (“the ‘518 patent”); 9,403,626
`
`(“the ‘626 patent”); 9,511,929 (“the ‘929 patent”); and 9,440,785 (“the ‘785 patent”). At
`
`the Markman hearing, the parties grouped the first three patents together and discussed
`
`the ‘785 patent separately. The Court will group the patents in the manner in which the
`
`
`1 All record citations correspond to the docket numbers in case number 4:17-CV-589.
`
`4 / 37
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00012 Document 173 Filed in TXSD on 07/09/18 Page 5 of 37
`
`parties did in their Markman presentations and will address the terms in the order in
`
`which the parties did in their Markman presentations.
`
`III. THE ‘518, ‘626, AND ‘929 PATENTS
`
`The parties have asked the Court to conduct nine constructions related to the ‘518,
`
`‘626, and ‘929 patents. Grit has also argued that a claim contained in the ‘626 and ‘929
`
`patents is indefinite.
`
`1. The term “adjacent” in claim 13 of the ‘626 and ‘929 patents: The Court
`concludes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
`phrase “moving the first container to a position adjacent the second
`container” in claim 13 to mean placing the two containers in a stacked
`configuration.
`
`The parties first contest the meaning of the term “adjacent” as it is used in the
`
`phrase “moving the first container to a position adjacent the second container.” See Claim
`
`13 of the ‘626 and ‘929 patents. Sandbox argues that the term “adjacent” should be given
`
`its “plain and ordinary meaning,” which is set forth in the fourth edition of Webster’s
`
`New World College Dictionary as “near or close.” In response, Grit argues that the term
`
`“adjacent,” as used in the context of claim 13, must actually mean “above.” To support its
`
`proposed construction, Grit points to diagrams and language in the patent specifications
`
`that, according to Grit, indicate that claim 13 of the ‘626 and ‘929 patents only claims a
`
`method of discharging proppant onto a portable conveyor belt from a stacked
`
`configuration of multiple ocean freight containers, meaning that Sandbox’s specifications
`
`have disclaimed any definition of “adjacent” in claim 13 that is not “above” or “below.”
`
`Grit’s argument regarding the language of claim 13 has force. The intrinsic
`
`evidence shows that the stacked configuration of multiple ocean freight containers is
`
`5 / 37
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00012 Document 173 Filed in TXSD on 07/09/18 Page 6 of 37
`
`essential to the inventions claimed in the ‘626 and ‘929 patents. The patents emphasize
`
`how the stacking of multiple ocean freight containers eliminates the need for special
`
`proppant storage facilities, going so far as to say that, “[b]ecause of this stacking
`
`arrangement, special proppant storage facilities are not required at the fracturing site”
`
`(Dkt. 103-4 at p. 13) (emphasis added). According to the patents, special proppant
`
`storage facilities entail “a large capital investment” that can now be avoided because a
`
`“stacking arrangement” of “two containers, three containers, or more . . . provides a
`
`suitably modular arrangement whereby a proppant storage facility can be easily
`
`constructed on-site” (Dkt. 103-4 at pp. 11, 13). Then, “[a]fter the fracturing operation is
`
`completed, the containers can be easily removed from this stacked configuration and
`
`transported to another location” (Dkt. 103-4 at p. 13).
`
`During the fracturing operation, when the proppant needs to be taken out of
`
`storage and transported to the fracturing site, the ocean freight containers remain stacked
`
`during the unloading of the proppant. One of the stated objects of the invention, as a
`
`matter of fact, is “to provide a proppant storage assembly which allows proppant to be
`
`efficiently removed from a stacked configuration of containers” (Dkt. 103-4 at p. 12).
`
`And a section of the patents entitled “Detailed Description of the Invention” reads:
`
`FIG. 2 shows an end view of the proppant storage assembly of the present
`invention showing of the present invention [sic]. In FIG. 2, it can be seen
`that the first container is spaced from the second container. The second
`container is suitably spaced from the third container. The bottom hatch of
`the first container is openable so that the proppant within the first container
`can be discharged through the hatch onto a portable conveyor. The portable
`conveyor can be easily transported to a location below the hatch of the first
`container so as to allow the proppant from the containers to be transported
`to another location. Each of the containers is vertically aligned in a stacked
`
`6 / 37
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00012 Document 173 Filed in TXSD on 07/09/18 Page 7 of 37
`
`orientation. The first container has a capacity for storing 100,000 pounds of
`proppant. The second container and the third container can store 30,000
`pounds of proppant. As such, a very large amount of proppant can be
`provided to the fracturing site, in a simple easy and convenient manner.
`Dkt. 103-4 at pp. 13–14 (emphasis added; numbers corresponding to
`accompanying diagram omitted).
`
`Just as the passage quoted above describes, Figure 2 of the patents shows three
`
`stacked ocean freight containers with a portable conveyor belt beneath them (Dkt. 103-4
`
`at p. 8). Figure 1 of the patent, which depicts in great detail the mechanics of the gravity-
`
`driven path along which the proppant flows from the higher containers to the lower
`
`containers when it is unloaded from the temporary storage facility, also shows three
`
`stacked ocean freight containers (Dkt. 103-4 at p. 7). Figure 1 and Figure 2 are the only
`
`drawings that depict multiple ocean freight containers; the other drawings show the
`
`composition of the individual containers and depict how those containers are modified to
`
`store and discharge large quantities of proppant (Dkt. 103-4 at pp. 9–10).
`
`Further, the ‘518, ‘626, and ‘929 patents all open with a “Field of the Invention”
`
`section that reads:
`
`The present invention relates to storage containers. More particularly, the
`present invention relates to storage container assemblies whereby a product
`in one container can flow to an interior volume of a lower container.
`Dkt. 103-4 at p. 11; Dkt. 111-2 at p. 9; Dkt. 111-3 at p. 10.
`
`
`
`Taken in conjunction with the diagrams and other language in the specifications,
`
`the “Field of the Invention” section strongly indicates that the first container it describes
`
`is stacked atop the second, “lower” container. Indeed, Claim 13 itself recites:
`
`[a] method for delivering large volumes of proppant to a fracturing site, the
`method comprising . . . positioning a first container [and] stacking a second
`container . . . in a vertically stacked positioned [sic] above the first
`
`7 / 37
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00012 Document 173 Filed in TXSD on 07/09/18 Page 8 of 37
`
`container . . . to allow proppant to flow therefrom [to] the first container
`[and] from the first container onto a conveyor positioned at an elevation
`below the first [container] and the second [container].
`(Dkt. 103-4 at p. 16) (emphasis added).
`
`In short, whenever the specifications depict multiple ocean freight containers,
`
`whether verbally or visually, they do so in a stacked configuration; and the patent
`
`specifications repeatedly tout that stacked configuration as an advantage and distinction
`
`of the described invention that makes possible the modular construction of a temporary
`
`proppant storage facility from which the proppant can be easily and efficiently removed
`
`and transported via conveyor to the fracturing site. Additionally, the patents’ prosecution
`
`history specifically distinguishes prior art on the basis that the prior art did not involve
`
`stacked containers:
`
`Claim 29 is being amended with this paper to clarify that the spacer is
`elongate and that is for supporting another container that is above the
`container. What is identified in Glewee et al. ‘232 as being a spacer is
`merely a member set between lateral containers and not containers that are
`vertically stacked. Thus this feature of claim 29 is not taught by Glewee et
`al. ‘232.
`Dkt. 111-5 at p. 10 (all emphasis in original).
`
`
`
`
`
`In the Campbell patent, it is intended that a nozzle 13 be applied of the
`circular bottom opening so as to allow for the discharge of material from
`the interior of the container. As such, the Campbell patent would not be
`configured so as to allow for a stacked arrangement of such containers
`whereby the proppant from an upper container can be discharged into and
`through the top hatch of a lower container so as to fill the interior volume
`of the lower container.
`Dkt. 111-7 at p. 12.
`
`
`
`“[W]hen the scope of the invention is clearly stated in the specification, and is
`
`described as the advantage and distinction of the invention, it is not necessary to disavow
`
`explicitly a different scope.” On Demand Mach. Corp. v. Ingram Indus., Inc., 442 F.3d
`
`8 / 37
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00012 Document 173 Filed in TXSD on 07/09/18 Page 9 of 37
`
`1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, “the patentee’s choice of preferred embodiments
`
`can shed light on the intended scope of the claims.” Astrazeneca AB v. Mutual
`
`Pharmaceutical Co., Inc., 384 F.3d 1333, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The language and
`
`diagrams contained in the specifications lead the Court to conclude that a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the relevant art would understand the phrase “moving the first container
`
`to a position adjacent the second container” in claim 13 to mean placing the two
`
`containers in a stacked configuration. See Boss Control, Inc. v. Bombardier, Inc., 410
`
`F.3d 1372, 1376–79 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Because the specification makes clear that the
`
`invention involves a two-stage interrupt mode, the intrinsic evidence binds Boss to a
`
`narrower definition of ‘interrupt’ than the extrinsic evidence might support.”); see also
`
`On Demand, 442 F.3d at 1339–40 (holding that the district court erred in using the
`
`dictionary definition of “customer” when the patent “specification repeatedly reinforce[d]
`
`its usage of the term ‘customer’ as the retail consumer”—“[T]he focus of the Ross patent
`
`is immediate single-copy printing and binding initiated by the customer and conducted at
`
`the customer’s site. The district court’s definition of ‘customer’ cannot eliminate these
`
`constraints in order to embrace the remote large-scale production of books for publishers
`
`and retailers.”). This conclusion is reinforced by the patents’ prosecution history, in
`
`which Sandbox distinguished prior art on the basis that the prior art did not involve
`
`stacked containers. See Trs. of Columbia Univ., 811 F.3d at 1368 (“In other words, what
`
`distinguished the invention from the prior art is that it could predict whether a registry
`
`access was malicious from a model that was built using only normal data. . . . The district
`
`9 / 37
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00012 Document 173 Filed in TXSD on 07/09/18 Page 10 of 37
`
`court’s conclusion that the model of the #084 and #306 patents must be built with only
`
`attack-free normal data is correct.”).
`
`
`
`2. The term “bottom” in the ‘518, ‘626, and ‘929 patents and the term “top”
`in the ‘626 and ‘929 patents: The Court concludes that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art would understand the terms “bottom” and “top”
`to mean “bottom wall” and “top wall.”
`
`The Court will address the next two terms, “bottom” and “top,” together. Sandbox
`
`argues that both terms should be given their “broad” plain and ordinary meanings, while
`
`Grit argues that the two terms must be construed as referring to top and bottom walls,
`
`“consistent with the inventor’s view of the invention as a modified shipping container”
`
`(Dkt. 111 at pp. 15, 23; Dkt. 118 at pp. 17–18).
`
`Again, Grit’s argument has force. The specification language of the patents
`
`emphasizes that the principal goal of this invention is to facilitate the modular
`
`construction of a temporary proppant storage facility with modified ocean freight
`
`containers—the patents even say that “[e]ach of the containers is [an] ocean freight
`
`container” (Dkt. 103-4 at p. 12). The specification language goes on to explain that the
`
`use of modified ocean freight containers carries particular advantages in that the
`
`containers are easily transportable, stackable, and interchangeable:
`
`In the configuration shown in FIG. 1, volumes of proppants can be easily
`stored at the fracturing site. It is only necessary to stack each of the
`containers upon one another in the manner described in FIG. 1. Each of the
`containers has an exterior configuration similar to that of an ocean freight
`container. As such, these containers can be easily transported on the bed of
`a truck, on a freight train or on a ship to the desired location.
`
`. . .
`
`
`10 / 37
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00012 Document 173 Filed in TXSD on 07/09/18 Page 11 of 37
`
`The present invention provides a suitably modular arrangement whereby a
`proppant storage facility can be easily constructed on-site. After the
`fracturing operation is completed, the containers can be easily removed
`from this stacked configuration and transported to another location.
`Similarly, if desired, the containers can be suitably replaced by another
`container so as to provide the desired proppant to the fracturing site.
`Dkt. 103-4 at p. 13 (numbers corresponding to accompanying diagram
`omitted).
`
`
`
`As previously mentioned, Figure 1 of the patent depicts in great detail the
`
`mechanics of the gravity-driven path along which the proppant flows from the higher
`
`containers to the lower containers when it is unloaded from the temporary storage
`
`facility. The containers shown in Figure 1, just like the ocean freight containers from
`
`which they are derived, have top and bottom walls; hatches in these top and bottom walls
`
`swing open to form a “unique and guided flowpath” that allows the proppant to flow
`
`“efficiently” and “directly” from the higher containers to the lower ones and ultimately
`
`from the lowest container onto a portable conveyor belt (Dkt. 103-4 at pp. 12–13). A
`
`smaller version of Figure 1 is also included on the front page of the patent below the
`
`abstract, which describes the containers as “having a first end wall, a second end wall, a
`
`first side wall, a second side wall, a top wall and a bottom wall” (Dkt. 103-4 at p. 2).
`
`The description of the modular units as modified ocean freight containers also
`
`pervades the portions of the prosecution history that are in evidence. During the patent
`
`prosecution, Sandbox stated to the patent examiner that, “[i]n order to accommodate such
`
`a large amount of proppant weight, the configuration of a standard twenty foot ISO
`
`container must be modified in an extreme manner and adapted to the particular purposes
`
`associated with such proppant” (Dkt. 111-7 at p. 9). The described modification,
`
`11 / 37
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00012 Document 173 Filed in TXSD on 07/09/18 Page 12 of 37
`
`according to the prosecution history, “adds unique qualities to the standard twenty foot
`
`ISO container” that allow the container to accommodate the proppant (Dkt. 111-7 at p.
`
`10). Sandbox then distinguished prior art on the basis that “the prior art patents would not
`
`address a technique for converting a twenty foot ISO container for the purpose of
`
`containing a large amount of proppant material therein” (Dkt. 111-7 at pp. 15–16). In
`
`another exchange, the patent examiner labeled a claim “vague on the basis [that] the term
`
`‘ocean freight container’ was deemed unclear” (Dkt. 111-5 at p. 9). Sandbox responded
`
`by providing the patent examiner with the URL to a webpage listing “various sizes [of]
`
`ocean freight containers” (Dkt. 111-5 at p. 9). Based on that webpage, Sandbox
`
`“respectfully submit[ted]” that the term “ocean freight container” is “known and
`
`understood to those skilled in the art and is therefore clear” (Dkt. 111-5 at p. 9). It
`
`appears that the URL is no longer operational; but the record contains a screen capture of
`
`the referenced webpage, which shows 20- and 40-foot standard intermodal shipping
`
`containers as well as a 40-foot “hi-cube” shipping container (Dkt. 111-6 at pp. 2–5).2 In
`
`yet another filing, Sandbox again distinguished prior art on the basis that the prior art
`
`“would only contain relatively light weight material” and that as a result “there would be
`
`no need to include structures that would enhance the structural integrity of a 20 foot ISO
`
`container” (Dkt. 111-9 at p. 18).
`
`
`2 The screen capture also shows other types of shipping containers, which are labeled “reefer
`container”; “bin”; “platform”; “flatrack”; and “open top container.” The intrinsic evidence
`provides no indication that Sandbox intended for the term “ocean freight container” to
`encompass these other types of containers. Unlike the standard intermodal shipping containers,
`the other types of containers are not repeatedly discussed elsewhere in the patent specification
`and the prosecution history.
`
`12 / 37
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00012 Document 173 Filed in TXSD on 07/09/18 Page 13 of 37
`
`“[W]hen the scope of the invention is clearly stated in the specification, and is
`
`described as the advantage and distinction of the invention, it is not necessary to disavow
`
`explicitly a different scope.” On Demand, 442 F.3d at 1340. Moreover, “the patentee’s
`
`choice of preferred embodiments can shed light on the intended scope of the claims.”
`
`Astrazeneca, 384 F.3d at 1340. The Court concludes from its review of the specification
`
`and prosecution history that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
`
`modular units used to construct the temporary proppant storage facility are modified
`
`standard intermodal shipping containers, which have top walls and bottom walls. By
`
`extension, the Court concludes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`
`the terms “bottom” and “top” to mean “bottom wall” and “top wall.” See Boss Control,
`
`410 F.3d at 1376–79; On Demand, 442 F.3d at 1339–40; Trs. of Columbia Univ., 811
`
`F.3d at 1368.
`
`3. The term “hatch” in the ‘518, ‘626, and ‘929 patents: The Court concludes
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term
`“hatch” to mean “a cover for an opening that opens outward and that is
`movable between a first position overlying the opening and a second
`position forming one right angle with the opening.”
`
`The parties next contest the meaning of the term “hatch.” Sandbox argues that the
`
`term should be given its “plain and ordinary meaning,” while Grit argues that the term
`
`should be construed as meaning “a hinged cover for an opening.” The specification and
`
`prosecution history lead the Court to conclude that the proper construction of the term
`
`“hatch” is somewhat more particular than either construction proposed by the parties.
`
`The specification describes the hatches as crucial to the formation of the gravity-
`
`driven path along which the proppant flows from the higher containers to the lower
`
`13 / 37
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00012 Document 173 Filed in TXSD on 07/09/18 Page 14 of 37
`
`containers when it is unloaded from the temporary storage facility. Specifically, the top
`
`hatch of one container combines with the bottom hatch of the container above to help
`
`“form a unique and guided flowpath” for the proppant. As the specification makes clear,
`
`the creation of the “flowpath” is possible because each hatch opens outward and is
`
`capable of resting in a position that forms one right angle with the opening that the hatch
`
`covers when closed. Hence, when both hatches are open, they can rest “generally
`
`parallel” to each other, forming a path from the interior of the higher container to that of
`
`the lower container:
`
`In particular, in FIG. 1, it can be seen that the first container has a hatch
`extending over the opening thereof. In particular, the hatch is hingedly
`mounted to the top wall of the first container so as to be movable between a
`closed position and an open position (illustrated in broken-line fashion). In
`particular,
`the bottom hatch of
`the second container will extend
`downwardly perpendicularly to the bottom wall. Similarly, the top hatch of
`the first container will extend upwardly in generally transverse relationship
`to the top wall. The hatches will be in generally parallel relationship in this
`configuration. As such, the hatches will form a unique and guided flowpath
`whereby the proppant in the interior volume of the second container can
`flow directly into the opening and into the interior volume of the first
`container. The length dimension of the hatches will be less than the
`distance between the top wall of the first container and the bottom wall of
`the second container.
`Dkt. 103-4 at p. 13 (numbers corresponding to accompanying diagram
`omitted).
`
`The Court further notes that Sandbox also used the hatches and the flowpath they
`
`create to distinguish and claim an advantage over prior art:
`
`The prior art combination of the Campbell patent, the Shuert patent, the
`Elstone patent, Areddy patent and the Meritt patent would not suggest to
`one having ordinary skill in the art the arrangement of the top hatch and the
`bottom hatch in which the top hatch and the bottom hatch are in parallel
`spaced relationship to each other when they are in the open position. As
`such, the prior art combination would fail to provide the function of a
`
`14 / 37
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00012 Document 173 Filed in TXSD on 07/09/18 Page 15 of 37
`
`guided flow path for the proppant between the upper container and the
`lower container. The prior art combination would fail to show or suggest
`the advantage of the present invention of avoiding any dispersal of the
`proppant through such a discharging relationship.
`Dkt. 111-9 at p. 22.
`
`
`
`
`
`“[W]hen the scope of the invention is clearly stated in the specification, and is
`
`described as the advantage and distinction of the invention, it is not necessary to disavow
`
`explicitly a different scope.” On Demand, 442 F.3d at 1340. Moreover, “the patentee’s
`
`choice of preferred embodiments can shed light on the intended scope of the claims.”
`
`Astrazeneca, 384 F.3d at 1340. The Court concludes from its review of the specification
`
`and prosecution history that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
`
`term “hatch” to mean “a cover for an opening that opens outward and that is movable
`
`between a first position overlying the opening and a second position forming one right
`
`angle with the opening.” See Boss Control, 410 F.3d at 1376–79; On Demand, 442 F.3d
`
`at 1339–40; Trs. of Columbia Univ., 811 F.3d at 1368.
`
`4. The term “coupled to” in the ‘626 and ‘929 patents: The Court concludes
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term
`“coupled to” to mean “directly attached to.”
`
`The parties next contest the meaning of the term “coupled to” in the phrases
`
`“sidewalls coupled to and extending between the top and bottom” and “sidewalls coupled
`
`to the top and bottom.” Sandbox argues that the term “coupled to” should be given its
`
`“plain and ordinary meaning,” while Grit argues that the term should be construed as
`
`meaning “directly attached to.”
`
`As discussed above, the Court has concluded from its examination of the patent
`
`specification and the prosecution history that the principal goal of this invention is to
`
`15 / 37
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00012 Document 173 Filed in TXSD on 07/09/18 Page 16 of 37
`
`facilitate the modular construction of a temporary proppant storage facility with modified
`
`ocean freight containers because such containers are easily transportable, stackable, and
`
`interchangeable. The prosecution history shows that Sandbox argued to the patent
`
`examiner that the term “ocean freight container” is well-known to persons of ordinary
`
`skill in the art as referring to an intermodal shipping container. With that in mind, the
`
`Court has already construed the terms “top” and “bottom” to mean “top wall” and
`
`“bottom wall.” The sidewalls of an ocean freight container are directly attached to the top
`
`wall and the bottom wall, as would be the sidewalls of a container emulating an ocean
`
`freight container. The Court concludes that a direct connection between the sidewalls and
`
`the top and bottom walls is necessary to achieve the principal goal of the invention. As a
`
`result, the Court concludes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the
`
`term “coupled to” to mean “directly attached to.” See OPTi, Inc. v. Advanced Micro
`
`Devices, Inc., No. 2:07-CV-278, 2009 WL 2424029, at *8 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2009) (“It
`
`is precisely the direct connection of the signal lines to the host platform that drives the
`
`number of pins whose reduction is a principal goal of the patent. Accordingly, the court
`
`construes the term ‘coupling’ to mean ‘directly connecting.’”) (emphasis removed).
`
`5. The term “arranging spacers” in the ‘626 and ‘929 patents: The Court
`concludes that no construction of this term is necessary.
`
`The parties next contest the meaning of the term “arranging spacers” in claim 14
`
`of the ‘626 and ‘929 patents. Sandbox argues that the term “arranging spacers” should be
`
`given its