Contech Stormwater Solutions v. Baysaver Technologies and Accubid Excavation (CAFC 2008-1206, -1207) non-precedential

Boilerplate claim construction synopsis: plain meaning unless intended otherwise, within the context of the specification. Add no filler. And, oh, this is not as easy as it may seem.

To construe a claim term, a court must determine the meaning of any disputed words from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of filing. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In determining the meaning of a disputed claim limitation, courts look primarily to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language, the specification, and the prosecution history. Id. at 1312-17. "It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the rights to exclude." Id. at 1312. Absent evidence to the contrary, words of a claim "are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning" as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 1312-13.

However, claims "do not stand alone" and are read within the context of the specification, which is the single best guide to the meaning of disputed terms. Id. at 1315. The specification may expressly or impliedly define a claim term contrary to their ordinary meaning. See id. at 1321. "In examining the specification for proper context, however, "it is improper to "at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims." CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).

"[T]he distinction between [properly] using the specification to interpret the meaning of a claim and [improperly] importing limitations from the specification into the claim can be a difficult one to apply in practice." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.

Trying to overcome noninfringement, Contech naturally wanted a broader claim construction of the disputed "outer surrounding wall." But the specification provided context.

Therefore, the language in the specification illustrates that the term "outer surrounding wall" refers to a substantially vertical surface... [T]he "vertical" requirement is not limited to the strictly vertical walls disclosed in the specification, but includes substantially vertical walls, such as walls that are slightly angled or slightly curved.

Contech argues that the district court ignored dictionary definitions that more broadly define "wall" as a "material layer enclosing space," which would cover any orientation of a surface, including vertical and horizontal. However, Contech "is not entitled to a claim construction divorced from the context of the [intrinsic evidence]." Nystrom v. TREX Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1144-45 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Lacking evidence within the specification to support this broad construction, Contech's argument fails.

Affirmed.