124 Fed. Cl. 610
Fed. Cl.2016Background
- Plaintiff Larry Holmberg alleges the United States infringed U.S. Patents Nos. 6,988,332 and 7,100,321 (both titled "Range Finder") under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 based on a product made/used by third-party defendant L-3 Communications.
- The patents describe a weapon-mounted rangefinder whose display is positioned so the user can see distance indicia through a firearm "scope."
- The ‘321 patent is a continuation of the application that produced the ‘331 patent; they share the same specification and drawings though some claims differ (device vs. method language).
- Parties disputed construction of four claim terms: "scope," "displaying," "viewable," and "readable;" L-3 additionally argued that claims 1 and 12 of the ‘321 patent are indefinite for claiming multiple statutory classes.
- The court held a Markman hearing, declined to receive expert testimony, and relied primarily on intrinsic evidence and dictionaries where helpful.
Issues
| Issue | Holmberg's Argument | United States / L-3 Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of "scope" | Plain and ordinary meaning: "viewing instrument." | "Scope" should mean a telescope (an optical instrument with magnification). | "Scope" construed as a viewing instrument (not limited to magnifying/telescopic devices). |
| Meaning of "displaying," "viewable," "readable" | Each term has its plain and ordinary, distinct meaning ("showing," "capable of being viewed," "capable of being read"). | Terms should be read consistently and interpreted in context to require the distance to be readable through the scope. | Adopted Holmberg's constructions; each term given its ordinary, distinct meaning. |
| Construction approach / POSA definition | Terms are common; no special POSA construction required. | POSA should be narrowly defined (EE/optics/physics degree + experience) and might affect meaning. | Court declined POSA expert evidence; ordinary meanings were readily apparent. |
| Indefiniteness of ‘321 claims 1 and 12 (L-3) | N/A | Claims indefinite because they allegedly claim both apparatus and method, leaving uncertainty when infringement occurs. | Claims 1 and 12 are not indefinite; limitations are structural (device configuration), not method steps, and do not improperly claim multiple statutory classes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (claim construction is a question of law)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.) (en banc) (claims construed in light of specification; ordinary meaning prevails absent clear intent to deviate)
- Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (role of factual findings and standard of review for claim construction)
- Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (use of intrinsic then extrinsic evidence)
- IPXL Holdings, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir.) (indefiniteness where claim improperly spans statutory classes)
- Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238 (presumption of patent validity and clear-and-convincing evidence standard for invalidity)