Phillips v. Awh Corporation

415 F.3d 1303 (2005)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P invented modular, steel-shell panels that can be welded together to form vandalism-resistant walls. P obtained the '798 patent and entered into an arrangement with D to market and sell the panels. That arrangement ended in 1990. In 1991, P received a sales brochure from D that suggested to him that D was continuing to use his trade secrets and patented technology without his consent. P brought suit charging D with misappropriation of trade secrets and infringement. The district court dismissed the trade secret misappropriation claim as barred by Colorado's three-year statute of limitations. The language of claim 1 recites 'further means disposed inside the shell for increasing its load-bearing capacity comprising internal steel baffles extending inwardly from the steel shell walls.' The court held that the language described a specified function, and was thus subject to §112, paragraph 6, which provides that such a claim 'shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.' From examining the specification of the '798 patent, the court noted that 'every textual reference in the Specification and its diagrams show baffle deployment at an angle other than 90 [degree] to the wall faces' and that 'placement of the baffles at such angles creates an intermediate interlocking, but not solid, internal barrier.' The court ruled that, for purposes of the '798 patent, a baffle must 'extend inward from the steel shell walls at an oblique or acute angle to the wall face' and must form part of an interlocking barrier in the interior of the wall module. P could not prove infringement under that claim construction. D was granted its motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. P appealed and a split panel affirmed on both issues. Based on the patent's written description, the panel held that the claim term 'baffles' excludes structures that extend at a 90-degree angle from the walls. The panel noted that the specification repeatedly refers to the ability of the claimed baffles to deflect projectiles and that it describes the baffles as being 'disposed at such angles that bullets which might penetrate the outer steel panels are deflected.' The dissenting judge noted that the parties had stipulated that 'baffles' are a 'means for obstructing, impeding, or checking the flow of something,' and that the panel majority had agreed that the ordinary meaning of baffles is 'something for deflecting, checking, or otherwise regulating flow.' The dissent concluded that 'there is no reason to supplement the plain meaning of the claim language with a limitation from the preferred embodiment.' P petitioned for en banc review.