3m Innovative Properties v. Tredegar Corporation, 725 F.3d 1315

Background

3M sued Tredegar for patent infringement involving four patents that claim multilayer elastomeric laminates used in diaper components; district court construed 30 claim terms, parties then stipulated noninfringement, and 3M appealed four constructions.
Two patent families: Krueger patents (teach a continuous microtextured skin layer that remains in contact with an elastomeric core) and Hanschen patents (teach localized "preferential activation zones" that become elastic while adjacent zones remain inelastic).
Central technical dispute concerns how skin and core interact when stretched: full contact (Figure 22), cohesive failure where core cracks but skin-core contact persists (Figure 23), and adhesive/intermittent contact (Figure 24).
District court construed "continuous contact" as "full surface contact," interpreted "continuous microtextured skin layer over substantially the entire laminate" to require substantially uniform microtexturing over the surface, required "preferential activation zones" to be predetermined/identifiable and exist prior to activation, and limited "ribbon" to strips no wider than one inch.
Federal Circuit reviewed claim construction de novo, affirmed in part, reversed in part, clarified constructions for some terms, vacated and remanded others for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	3M's Argument	Tredegar's Argument	Held
Scope of "continuous contact" (Krueger patents)	Includes both full contact (Fig.22) and cohesive-failure contact (Fig.23); means uninterrupted skin-core contact even if core has internal cracks.	District court should limit to full surface contact (Fig.22) based on prosecution amendments removing "substantially."	Affirmed construction as full-surface contact but clarified it includes cohesive-failure mode (Fig.23); prosecution history did not show clear disavowal.
"Continuous microtextured skin layer over substantially the entire laminate" ('034 patent)	"Continuous" modifies skin layer; microtexturing need only occur in at least one region (not necessarily continuous everywhere).	Microtexturing must be continuous/substantially uniform across the laminate surface as claimed.	Affirmed district court’s middle-path: requires a continuous skin layer whose microtexturing extends over substantially the entire surface and is substantially uniform (not limited to a single region).
"Preferential activation zone" (Hanschen patents)	Zones can be selected/created and activated simultaneously (controlled localized stretching); term should follow claim language: area that will preferentially elongate to form an elastic zone.	Zones must be predetermined/identifiable before activation and involve a two-step process (intermediate state before final elastic state).	Reversed district court: no requirement that zones be predetermined or exist in an intermediate state; proper construction — selected area(s) that, when stretched, will elongate to form an elastic zone before or to a greater extent than other areas.
"Ribbon" ('034 patent dependent claims)	Plain meaning is a strip of film; no size/width limit in claims/specification.	Tredegar: need a width limit (≤1 inch) to cure indefiniteness; district court adopted 1-inch limit based on cited prior art.	Reversed district court: "ribbon" means simply a "strip of film"; no one-inch width limit; term not indefinite in context.

Key Cases Cited

Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir.) (en banc) (claim construction is a question of law reviewed de novo)
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.) (en banc) (claims given ordinary meaning; specification guides construction)
Intervet Inc. v. Merial Ltd., 617 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir.) (specification limitations cannot be read into claims without support)
Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, 566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir.) (same principle)
Advanced Fiber Tech. (AFT) Trust v. J & L Fiber Servs., 674 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir.) (use of dictionaries permissible if consistent with intrinsic record)
Netcraft Corp. v. eBay, 549 F.3d 1394 (Fed. Cir.) (prosecution history often lacks specificity; treat cautiously)
TI Grp. Auto. Sys. v. VDO North Am., 375 F.3d 1126 (Fed. Cir.) (claim scope entitled to full breadth absent limiting circumstances)
Lazare Kaplan Int’l, Inc. v. Photoscribe Tech., 628 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir.) (prosecution disclaimer requires clear and unmistakable disavowal)
Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir.) (prosecution disclaimer standard)
Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am., 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir.) (patentee may choose broad terms and obtain full scope absent explicit redefinition)
Grober v. Mako Prods., 686 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir.) (ambiguous prosecution statements do not create disclaimer)
Elbex Video, Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elec. Corp., 508 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir.) (patentee’s statements control over examiner’s when ambiguous)
Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir.) (claims construed in light of what inventors intended)
Biagro Western Sales, Inc. v. Grow More, 423 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir.) (examiner statements during reexamination are not dispositive)
C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir.) (patentee statements during prosecution can amount to disclaimer when clear)
Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods. Co., 717 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir.) (do not import limitations absent support in claims/spec)
Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 537 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir.) (indefiniteness requires insoluble ambiguity)