Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
899 F.3d 1291
| Fed. Cir. | 2018Background
- Hyosung (patent owner) sued Diebold at the ITC claiming Diebold’s imported ATM modules infringed claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,523,235, which require a "cheque standby unit."
- The patent describes an ATM that separates, transports, verifies, and sorts mixed bundles of cash and checks; each asserted claim recites a "cheque standby unit" placed on the main transfer path between two gates and configured to hold authentic checks for possible return on user cancellation.
- The specification never uses the exact claim phrase "cheque standby unit," but repeatedly references a "cheque temporary standby unit" and depicts it as an indistinct vertical line in Figure 2; no structural details or exemplars of the unit are provided.
- The ITC ALJ found infringement and held the term "cheque standby unit" was not indefinite, crediting patentee expert testimony that the term connotes structure (e.g., an "escrow" or known components for holding checks).
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit held the term is a means-plus-function limitation under pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6 and found the specification fails to disclose adequate corresponding structure; therefore the asserted claims are indefinite and invalid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hyosung) | Defendant's Argument (Diebold) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "cheque standby unit" invokes § 112, para. 6 (means‑plus‑function) | Term denotes a structural unit; a person of ordinary skill would understand it as structure (ALJ/expert testimony) | Term is functional: "unit" is a generic nonce word; specification gives only function and location, not structure | Court: Invokes § 112, para. 6 (term lacks sufficiently definite structural meaning) |
| Whether extrinsic evidence was required to rebut presumption against § 112, para. 6 | Expert testimony showing structural understanding is sufficient | Diebold: intrinsic record shows only functional recitations; extrinsic evidence not required for Diebold to prevail | Court: Patentee’s expert testimony did not establish a reasonably well‑understood structural meaning; intrinsic evidence suffices to hold term means‑plus‑function |
| Whether specification discloses corresponding structure for claimed function | Figure 2 and description disclose "stacking/temporary storage" and show a unit on the transfer path | Diebold: no structural disclosure—figure and text are functional/indistinct | Court: Specification fails to disclose adequate corresponding structure; mere functional language and indistinct figure insufficient |
| Remedy / effect on asserted claims | Claims valid and infringed | Claims indefinite — should be invalidated | Court: Claims 1–3, 6, 8, and 9 are invalid for indefiniteness; ITC finding of violation reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir.) (presumption against means‑plus‑function when term lacks "means," standard for when § 112, para. 6 applies)
- Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (U.S. 2015) (claim construction is legal question reviewing subsidiary factual findings under deferential standard)
- Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo‑Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580 (Fed. Cir.) (term may connote structure even if defined functionally when term has established meaning in the art)
- Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc., 830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir.) (terms that only recite function without structural delimitation invoke § 112, para. 6)
- Inventio AG v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Americas Corp., 649 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir.) ("computing unit" connoted structure where specification described processors/memory)
- Apex, Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc., 325 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir.) ("circuit" can connote structure where ordinary meaning in the art supplies structural content)
- Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek s.a.r.l., 859 F.3d 1014 (Fed. Cir.) (determination of whether claim term without "means" invokes § 112, para. 6 is a legal question reviewed de novo)