Exmark Manufacturing Company Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Corporation
8:10-cv-00187
D. Neb.Nov 29, 2011Background
- Exmark owns U.S. Patent 5,987,863 for a multi-blade lawn mower convertible between side discharge and mulching modes.
- Exmark filed suit on May 12, 2010 against Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC and Schiller Grounds Care, Inc. for patent infringement.
- The case proceeded to a Markman claim-construction hearing under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
- The court analyzed intrinsic evidence (claims, specification, prosecution history) and extrinsic evidence to construe disputed claim terms.
- The court issued final claim-constructions on November 29, 2011, adjusting several terms and declaring others require no construction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| How to construe 'first' and 'second' in the claim terms | Use ordinary meaning; no literal reassignment to 'front'/'rear'. | Interpret 'first' to mean 'front' and 'second' to mean 'rear' in all terms. | All instances of 'first' mean 'front' and all instances of 'second' mean 'rear'. |
| Whether 'said front flow control baffle extending substantially continuously from the front location adjacent the interior surface of said second side of wall to a second location adjacent the interior surface of said front side wall' requires construction | No construction needed; plain meaning suffices. | Need explicit relation (e.g., adjacency/touching) across the deck. | No construction needed; term means 'extending substantially continuously' with near adjacencies understood from context. |
| Whether 'and adjacent the forward end of said discharge opening' needs construction | No construction needed. | Should require contact/abutting the discharge opening. | No construction needed; 'adjacent' means near, not necessarily touching. |
| Whether 'a front arcuate baffle portion that extends from the interior surface of said second side wall' requires construction | No construction needed. | Should require contact/abutment with the second side wall. | No construction needed; not required to contact/abut; extend with no such limitation. |
| Construction of 'second flow control baffle' | Describe a structure within the deck walls; possibly separate from the first baffle. | Must be separate and distinct from the first baffle. | Adopt Exmark's framing: 'a second rear structure within the walls of the mower deck that controls the flow of air and grass clippings' with no requirement of separation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claims define scope; consider specification and prosecution history)
- DSW, Inc. v. Shoe Pavilion, Inc., 537 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (words of a claim are given their ordinary meaning, in context)
- Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (reliance on specification/prosecution history for claim meaning)
- Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 381 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (extrinsic evidence considered, but less significant than intrinsic record)
- Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (incorporation by reference; explicit host-document integration)
- Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (best mode and claim construction considerations)
- Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (preserves ordinary meaning unless lexicography shows otherwise)
- Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (claim scope and interpretation principles)