John Mezzalingua Associates (dba PPC) v. ITC (CAFC 2010-1373) nonprecedential; Judges Bryson, Dyk, and Prost (author)

5,470,257 claims a "a connector for attaching a coaxial cable to a threaded peg on a television, cable box, or other equipment."

Upon reviewing the Initial Determination, the ITC adopted a different construction of claim 1's "engagement means" limitation than ALJ Gildea. Comm'n Op., Certain Coaxial Cable Connectors, slip op. at 32 (USITC Mar. 31, 2010) (hereinafter "Comm'n Op."); see also Comm'n Op. (Public Version), 2010 ITC LEXIS 570 (USITC Apr. 14, 2010). Based on this new construction, the ITC concluded that PPC's CMP connector did not practice the "engagement means" limitation of claim 1, and so concluded that PPC had not satisfied the technical prong of § 337's domestic industry requirement as to the '257 patent. Comm'n Op. at 40-41; see also Tariff Act of 1930, § 337(a)(2), 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2) (2006). It therefore concluded that no violation had occurred as to the '257 patent.

On to appeal.

This court reviews the ITC's claim construction determinations de novo. Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 54 F.3d 756, 760 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The determination of whether a device practices a patent claim (properly construed) is one of fact, reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Oak Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 248 F.3d 1316, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Section 112, paragraph 6 of the Patent Act provides for the use of "means-plus-function" limitations in patent claiming. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6; see also Lockheed Martin Corp. v Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 324 F.3d 1308, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2003). When construing a means-plus-function limitation, the claim "shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof." 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.

The parties' dispute turns on the precise reach of the structure corresponding to the "engagement means."

The ITC picked an specification embodiment it liked to read into the claim.

PPC... argues that the "engagement means" limitation should be construed to include only what is necessary to perform the function, and not import structures that, though present in the preferred embodiment, are not actually necessary. See Wenger Mfg., Inc. v. Coating Mach. Sys., Inc., 239 F.3d 1225, 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

To which the CAFC panel agreed.

Claim interpretation under § 112, ¶ 6 does not "permit incorporation of structure from the written description beyond that necessary to perform the claimed function." Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

A dependent claim was also burdened.

We see no reason in this case why any dependent claim should require narrower reading of the independent parent.

The upshot -

Based on the above, we hold that the ITC erred in determining the structure corresponding to the claimed "engagement means." We further hold that ALJ Gildea correctly construed this term.

Neither PPC nor the ITC disputes that, having construed the "engagement means" in the same manner as ALJ Gildea, we have removed the final bar to finding violation of § 337 as to the defaulting respondents. We therefore enter judgment of violation as to those respondents and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.