Epos Technologies Ltd. v. Pegasus Technologies Ltd.
766 F.3d 1338
Fed. Cir.2014Background
- Pegasus Technologies Ltd. and Luidia, Inc. accuse EPOS Technologies Ltd. of infringing six patents relating to digitizing writing and retrofit devices.
- District court granted summary judgment of noninfringement after claim construction, prompting appeal.
- This court vacates in part and reverses in part, remanding for further proceedings.
- Key disputed terms include drawing implement, given time interval, marking implement, and temporary attachment.
- The court also addresses infringement under the doctrine of equivalents for the ’371 patent.
- The patents cover devices that digitize writing on boards and retrofit reading surfaces with sensor arrays.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the proper construction of 'drawing implement'? | Pegasus argues it includes non-conventional implements beyond a standard pen. | EPOS argues it is limited to conventional writing utensils with a marker-like use. | Vacate district court's construction; term not limited to 'conventional'. |
| What is the proper construction of 'given time interval'? | No fixed upper bound; interval is not limited to a few seconds. | Interval must be bounded to address data capture timing. | Vacate district court’s upper-bound construction; no fixed limit implied. |
| What is the proper construction of 'marking implement'? | Broad use including pens; not limited to markers only. | Limit to marker-tip devices. | Vacate district court’s marker-only construction; pen-tip can be included. |
| What is the proper construction of 'temporary attachment' in the ’051 patent? | Temporary means removable, enabling repeated affixation. | Temporary requires a detachable component separate from the retrofitting device. | Vacate district court’s restrictive construction; temporary attachments include clip-on/brackets and tape. |
| Does the doctrine of equivalents support infringement of the ’371 patent? | Intermittent signal could be met by equivalent continuous signals. | Continous signals should not be treated as equivalent to intermittent signals. | Vacate district court’s summary judgment of noninfringement under the doctrine of equivalents; remand for full analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claims construction guidance; reading in intrinsic evidence)
- Liebel-Flarsheim v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (avoid importing limitations from embodiments)
- Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (de novo review of claim construction)
- Anchor Wall Sys., Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claim construction must be supported by intrinsic record)
- Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America Corp., 744 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (context for de novo claim construction and review standards)
- Charles Machine Works, Inc. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 723 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (infringement questions and factual inferences on appeal)
- Planet Bingo, LLC v. GameTech Int’l, Inc., 472 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (doctrine of equivalents analysis requires substantial equivalence)
- Warner–Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (2000) (doctrine of equivalents framework)
- Crown Packaging Tech., Inc. v. Rexam Beverage Can Co., 559 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (limits on doctrine and claim interpretation)
- Coalition for Common Sense in Government Procurement v. United States, 707 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (summary judgment and deference standards)