Liberty Ammunition, Llc v. United States
111 Fed. Cl. 365
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- Liberty sues the United States in the Court of Federal Claims for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,748,325 (the ‘325 patent) under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a).
- The ‘325 patent concerns lead-free “green bullet” technology with a three-part projectile: nose, tail, and an interface that connects them.
- The patent has two independent claims (Claims 1 and 32) and forty dependent claims; the parties disputed fifteen claim terms for construction.
- A Markman hearing was held on March 22, 2013; two terms were agreed upon and construed accordingly; the rest were briefed and argued.
- The court provides constructions for the fifteen terms, rejecting extrinsic evidence as unnecessary to resolve the dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interface meaning (Term 1) | Liberty: interface is outer portion holding nose and tail together prior to strike. | Government: interface not restricted in length and may enclose ends. | Term 1 adopted to mean outer portion holding nose and tail together prior to strike. |
| Structured to provide controlled rupturing (Term 2) | Liberty: rupture can occur upon striking a target, not limited to tumbling. | Government: rupture occurs through tumbling as direct cause. | Term 2 construed as rupture upon striking a target, not limited to tumbling. |
| Reduced area of contact (Term 3) | Liberty: interface area is reduced relative to the barrel contact without a specific reference. | Government: reduced area of contact compared to a traditional jacketed projectile (including M855). | Term 3 construed as the contact area between interface and rifling is less than that of a traditional jacketed .17–.50 BMG bullet. |
| Fixedly secured (Term 5) | Liberty: nose, tail, and interface are connected prior to firing and remain intact in flight. | Government: retain language about secure connection; examples of methods are optional. | Term 5 construed to mean the components are connected in a securely fastened way during launch and flight. |
Key Cases Cited
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (U.S. Supreme Court 1996) (claim construction is a question of law guided by intrinsic evidence)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (extrinsic evidence should be less significant than intrinsic record)
- Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (intrinsic evidence is the most significant source of claim meaning)
- SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (do not read a limitation from the written description into the claims)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (broad claim scope must be consistent with dependent claims)
- C.R. Bard, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (extrinsic evidence cannot alter claim meaning discernible from intrinsic evidence)
- Hockerson-Halbertstadt, Inc. v. Converse, Inc., 183 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (interpretation must consider the claim as a whole and context)