Inventio AG v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator Americas Corp.
649 F.3d 1350
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- Inventio AG sued ThyssenKrupp Elevator Americas Corp., ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp., and ThyssenKrupp Elevator Manufacturing Inc. for infringement of the '861 and '465 patents relating to modernizing elevator systems.
- The district court granted summary judgment that the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 for indefiniteness because the terms 'modernizing device' and 'computing unit' were means-plus-function limitations under § 112, ¶ 6 with no disclosed corresponding structure.
- The court concluded the written descriptions failed to disclose adequate structure for the recited functions and granted ThyssenKrupp's summary judgment motion.
- Inventio appealed, challenging the § 112, ¶ 6 characterization and requesting reversal and remand.
- ThyssenKrupp moved to strike portions of Inventio's reply brief, which the court denied as meritless but treated as part of the merits discussion.
- On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that 'modernizing device' and 'computing unit' are not means-plus-function limitations and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the terms 'modernizing device' and 'computing unit' subject to § 112, ¶ 6 as means-plus-function limitations? | Inventio contends the terms connote definite structure disclosed in the specification. | ThyssenKrupp argues both terms are purely functional without disclosed corresponding structure. | Not means-plus-function; both terms connote structure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (framework for when § 112, ¶ 6 applies; intrinsic evidence useful)
- Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. ITC, 161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (rebuttal of presumption for non-'means' terms using intrinsic evidence)
- TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (means-plus-function analysis framework emphasis on claim language)
- CCS Fitness v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (reaffirming analysis of 'definite structure' in claim terms)
- Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (importance of presumption when 'means' is not used)
- MIT v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (circuit treats specific structural disclosures as overcoming § 112, ¶ 6)
- Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (circuit discusses when 'circuit' connotes structure to avoid § 112, ¶ 6)
- Apex Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc., 325 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (interpretation of functional claim limitations with structural context)
- Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 637 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (reaffirming court's handling of arguments and emphasis on merits)
- LG Elecs., Inc. v. Bizcom Elecs., Inc., 453 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (recognized structure in claim language such as 'control unit' can avoid § 112, ¶ 6)