Epos Technologies Ltd v. Pegasus Technologies Ltd.
802 F. Supp. 2d 39
D.D.C.2011Background
- This is a District of Columbia case where EPOS Technologies and Pegasus Technologies dispute six ultrasonic pen-tracking patents.
- The court conducted a Markman hearing to resolve disputed claim terms and addressed patent indefiniteness arguments.
- The system at issue converts handwritten markings into digital images using ultrasonic TOF measurements with at least two receivers and a marker-mounted transmitter.
- Patents involved include the ’371, ’742, ’565, ’330, ’051, and ’461, covering devices attaching to pens/markers, component transceivers, and related methods.
- The court provides targeted claim constructions for disputed terms across the six patents, including some means-plus-function limitations, while noting some terms are definite.
- Constructions are issued in a separate order, after analyzing intrinsic claim language, specification guidance, and prosecutorial history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is ‘spatial frequency’ indefinite in the ‘330 patent? | EPOS contends indefiniteness due to conflicting meaning of frequency vs. length. | Pegasus argues term has a coherent meaning based on the patent context and figures. | Not indefinite; adopt Pegasus construction linking length-based interpretation with Figure 14. |
| Are ‘annotation implement’ and ‘operative implement’ indefinite in the ‘371 patent? | EPOS asserts no ordinary meaning and seeks narrowing. | Pegasus contends terms have clear ordinary meanings aligned with common usage. | Not indefinite; decline to construe; apply ordinary meanings for both terms. |
| Is ‘given time interval’ indefinite in the ‘742/’565 patents? | EPOS seeks a defined upper bound; argues limited to dashed-line context. | Pegasus urges no explicit upper bound, arguing broader applicability. | Construct as ‘‘fixed at a few seconds or less,’’ establishing an upper bound informed by the specification. |
| What is the proper construction of ‘interference’ in the ‘330 patent? | EPOS argues no construction is needed; term is well understood. | Pegasus proposes ‘obstruction, disruption, distortion’ or similar. | Construct as ‘‘obstruction, disruption, or distortion.’' |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claims defined by ordinary meaning but informed by specification and prosecution history)
- Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (indefiniteness should be avoided; term must be discernible by skilled artisans)