TO: Professor Risch
FROM: Christopher Lanks
DATE: December 11, 2007
RE: Patent Law Case Brief – Writing Assignment
Litepanels, Llc & Litepanels v. Gekko Tech., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89756 (D. Tex. 2007)
Decided December 6, 2007
The dispute is over the claim construction of the 823 patent and the 302 patent. Each patent dealt with illumination technology for film, commercial, and photographic industries. Both inventions address many issues that arose when using incandescent or fluorescent lights. These problems dealt with heat and intensity levels. The 823 patent addresses many of these issues and provides greater quality and quantity of illumination. The 302 patent uses Tungsten color balanced LEDs which produce daylight effects which better address the needs of the movie and film industry.
The courts role in the present case was to determine the proper construction of the claims in each of the patents. The court set out the proper claim construction analysis as follows: Using intrinsic evidence to define the patented invention’s scope through
a. The claim language,
b. The specification, and
c. The prosecution history.
The court noted that although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “less significant than the intrinsic record.†The court then identified each term that was disputed in the claim language and applied the proper analysis. This case demonstrates the proper procedure for claim construction using intrinsic and extrinsic evidence.
The first term that the court dealt with was “surface mount light elements†in the 823 patent, and “surface mount semiconductor light elements†in the 302 patent. Litepanels argues that there should be two separate constructions while Gekko proposed that each term should be construed as “light component designed to be soldered to a surface of a circuit board.†The court first looked to the specification of the 823 patent to determine the advantage of the “surface mount.†The specification identified the advantage of the “surface mount†was to dissipate heat through their leads. Although the specification states the advantage, it does not provide a clear definition of the term “surface mount,†therefore the court used extrinsic evidence to define the term within the parameters of the advantage. The court used the Wiley Electrical and Electronics Engineering Dictionary as the extrinsic evidence. Wiley Dictionary defined surface mounts as “a technology for mounting components and devices in which the connections are soldered to a surface, as opposed to having leads which pass through said surface.†The court concluded, through the specification and the Wiley Dictionary, that the proper construction of the terms was “a light emitting element where the electrical leads are designed to be soldered to a surface of a circuit board, rater than mounted through a hole in the circuit board.†This definition allows for the advantages defined in the specification, while giving the term a clear meaning.
The second term in which the court dealt with was “readily disengaged.†The term appears in both patents. Gekko argued that the term “readily disengaged†should mean “capable of being disengaged from a lighting frame by manually applying pressure to release locking tabs and twisting in an opposite direction from that originally used to bring it into a locking position.†The court noted that although the actual claim language does not reference limitations such as locking tabs, the construction tracked one of the embodiments in the patents. The court then stated the cannon of construction “in interpreting the meaning of a disputed claim, embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not be read into the claim.†The court then denied to construe the term “readily disengaged†because a lay juror would have no difficulty in understanding what that term meant.
The third term that the court dealt with was “continuous source of illumination.†Gekko argued that this term should be construed to mean “illumination with an uninterrupted source of current.†The court noted that Gekko did not offer any intrinsic evidence, then refused to construe the claim. Although Gekko offered expert testimony as extrinsic evidence, the court will generally not rely solely on extrinsic evidence to construe a term.
The key points that this case demonstrate is that limitations will not be read into the claim. Courts will adhere to using intrinsic evidence to define the term and if necessary, will use extrinsic evidence to better define the term. The court will not rely solely on extrinsic evidence to construe a term differently that what a lay juror would understand the term to mean.
FROM: Christopher Lanks
DATE: December 11, 2007
RE: Patent Law Case Brief – Writing Assignment
Litepanels, Llc & Litepanels v. Gekko Tech., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89756 (D. Tex. 2007)
Decided December 6, 2007
The dispute is over the claim construction of the 823 patent and the 302 patent. Each patent dealt with illumination technology for film, commercial, and photographic industries. Both inventions address many issues that arose when using incandescent or fluorescent lights. These problems dealt with heat and intensity levels. The 823 patent addresses many of these issues and provides greater quality and quantity of illumination. The 302 patent uses Tungsten color balanced LEDs which produce daylight effects which better address the needs of the movie and film industry.
The courts role in the present case was to determine the proper construction of the claims in each of the patents. The court set out the proper claim construction analysis as follows: Using intrinsic evidence to define the patented invention’s scope through
a. The claim language,
b. The specification, and
c. The prosecution history.
The court noted that although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “less significant than the intrinsic record.†The court then identified each term that was disputed in the claim language and applied the proper analysis. This case demonstrates the proper procedure for claim construction using intrinsic and extrinsic evidence.
The first term that the court dealt with was “surface mount light elements†in the 823 patent, and “surface mount semiconductor light elements†in the 302 patent. Litepanels argues that there should be two separate constructions while Gekko proposed that each term should be construed as “light component designed to be soldered to a surface of a circuit board.†The court first looked to the specification of the 823 patent to determine the advantage of the “surface mount.†The specification identified the advantage of the “surface mount†was to dissipate heat through their leads. Although the specification states the advantage, it does not provide a clear definition of the term “surface mount,†therefore the court used extrinsic evidence to define the term within the parameters of the advantage. The court used the Wiley Electrical and Electronics Engineering Dictionary as the extrinsic evidence. Wiley Dictionary defined surface mounts as “a technology for mounting components and devices in which the connections are soldered to a surface, as opposed to having leads which pass through said surface.†The court concluded, through the specification and the Wiley Dictionary, that the proper construction of the terms was “a light emitting element where the electrical leads are designed to be soldered to a surface of a circuit board, rater than mounted through a hole in the circuit board.†This definition allows for the advantages defined in the specification, while giving the term a clear meaning.
The second term in which the court dealt with was “readily disengaged.†The term appears in both patents. Gekko argued that the term “readily disengaged†should mean “capable of being disengaged from a lighting frame by manually applying pressure to release locking tabs and twisting in an opposite direction from that originally used to bring it into a locking position.†The court noted that although the actual claim language does not reference limitations such as locking tabs, the construction tracked one of the embodiments in the patents. The court then stated the cannon of construction “in interpreting the meaning of a disputed claim, embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not be read into the claim.†The court then denied to construe the term “readily disengaged†because a lay juror would have no difficulty in understanding what that term meant.
The third term that the court dealt with was “continuous source of illumination.†Gekko argued that this term should be construed to mean “illumination with an uninterrupted source of current.†The court noted that Gekko did not offer any intrinsic evidence, then refused to construe the claim. Although Gekko offered expert testimony as extrinsic evidence, the court will generally not rely solely on extrinsic evidence to construe a term.
The key points that this case demonstrate is that limitations will not be read into the claim. Courts will adhere to using intrinsic evidence to define the term and if necessary, will use extrinsic evidence to better define the term. The court will not rely solely on extrinsic evidence to construe a term differently that what a lay juror would understand the term to mean.