Choon's Design LLC v. Tristar Products, Inc., 2:14-cv-10848

Background

Choon’s Design owns patents ('565, '420, '441) for a Brunnian linkmaking device ("Rainbow Loom"); it alleges Tristar’s one-piece Bandaloom infringes those patents.
Dispute centers on claim scope—whether claims that describe a kit with a base and pin bar(s) cover a one-piece loom.
This is the Court’s second claim-construction (Markman) order after a prior order constrained several terms; settlement efforts failed.
The parties submitted additional disputed claim terms; the Court relied on intrinsic evidence and prior PTAB constructions where persuasive.
The Court adopted constructions for multiple terms (e.g., “opening on a front side,” “link,” “clip for securing ends,” “rows of offset pins,” and others) and declined to revisit certain earlier constructions (e.g., “supported on”).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Meaning of “opening on a front side” ('565 claim 1)	Requires a space or groove on a common forward-facing side of each pin	Opening is a space/groove on a forward-facing side of each pin; not required to be common to all pins	Construed as “a space or groove on a forward facing side of each pin”; not limited to a common side for all pins
“link” ('565, '420)	Should mean a closed loop (relies on PTAB construction)	Broad: “a continuous looped structure”	Construed as “a closed loop” (PTAB’s narrower interpretation adopted)
“a clip for securing ends of the series of links together” ('565/'441)	Clip = connector capable of securing ends	Agreed there is no narrower construction	Construed as “a connector that is capable of securing ends of a series of links together”
“supported on” (and related base/pin bar dispute)	Seeks broader reading to encompass one-piece structures	Court previously construed “base” and “pin bar” as distinct; asks for prior ruling to be reconsidered	Court refused to re-open prior construction; “supported on” remains resolved by earlier order
“to define a desired relative special relationship between at least two adjacent pins” ('565 method claim)	Ambiguous; plaintiff resists narrow spacing-only reading	Requires ability to set a chosen distance between adjacent pins	Construed as “to set a desired alignment between at least two adjacent pins” (alignment = positioning/adjustment)
“rows of offset pins” ('420)	Rows should be staggered relative to each other	Same as plaintiff	Construed to require the alignment of adjacent rows of pins be staggered relative to each other
“pins ... extending upward from the base” ('420)	Plain meaning; not limited to detachable pin bars	Tristar: requires pins from a pin bar attached to but detachable from a base	No further construction needed given earlier definitions of “base” and “pin bar”; plain meaning controls
“clip including inward facing ends” ('441)	Connector with terminal portions proximate an opening	Agreed	Construed as “connector with the terminal portions proximate an opening”

Key Cases Cited

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.) (claims construed by reference to intrinsic evidence and ordinary meaning to person of skill in the art)
Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir.) (intrinsic evidence is primary source for claim construction)
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir.) (claim construction is a question of law for the court)
Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir.) (give claim terms ordinary meaning and construe consistently across claims)
Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.) (avoid constructions that render claim language in related claims superfluous)
Omega Engineering, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir.) (consistent treatment of same claim terms across related patents)
Vizio, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 605 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir.) (functional claim language that captures essence of invention can be a limitation)