Grober v. Mako Products, Inc.
686 F.3d 1335
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- Grober and Voice International hold the ’662 patent for a camera stabilization platform (Perfect Horizon).
- Mako Prods., Inc. and related parties sold or leased a competing stabilization device (MakoHead).
- District court granted summary judgment of non-infringement and construed the term “payload platform.”
- PTO reexamination confirmed independent claims 1 and 38 and several dependents; district court’s construction provisionally stood pending appeal.
- This court vacates the district court’s claim construction and the non-infringement ruling, and remands for full infringement analysis; personal jurisdiction ruling is affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper meaning of payload platform | Grober contends payload platform is a three-dimensional structure. | Mako argues payload platform is a horizontal surface only. | Claim construction vacated; remanded for correct three-dimensional construction. |
| Infringement analysis post-construction | Infringement must be analyzed claim-by-claim with construed terms. | District court should not require full claim-by-claim comparison after adopting defendant’s construction. | Remand for a complete, claim-by-claim comparison of the accused device to construed claims. |
| Prosecution disclaimer impact on claim scope | Grober’s reexamination statements limit the payload platform. | Statements clearly limit the invention to a horizontal surface. | Statements do not unambiguously limit claim scope; prosecution disclaimer not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claims should be given ordinary meaning in context)
- Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (owning court reviews claim construction de novo)
- Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (prosecution disclaimer requires unambiguous disavowal)
- Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (prosecution history limits claim meaning in unambiguous disavowals)
- Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (prosecution history informs claim scope when disavowal occurs)
- Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 667 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (prosecution disclaimer applies to unambiguous limitations)
- Intervet America, Inc. v. Kee-Vet Labs., Inc., 887 F.2d 1050 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (patent infringement analysis requires comparing asserted claims to accused device)
- Z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 507 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (infringement requires that accused activity be covered by at least one claim)