Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America Corp.
790 F.3d 1329
| Fed. Cir. | 2015Background
- The patent: U.S. Patent No. 5,436,529 claims an electronic ballast that prevents destructive current when a fluorescent lamp is removed or defective; Claim 1 includes limitations reciting “voltage source means,” “control means,” and “direct current blocking means.”
- Litigation history: Lighting Ballast sued Universal Lighting Technologies (ULT) for infringement; jury found the asserted claims valid and infringed and awarded $3 million. ULT appealed multiple claim-construction and JMOL rulings.
- District court proceedings: The court initially treated “voltage source means” as a means-plus-function term (§112 ¶6) and found indefiniteness, then reversed after extrinsic expert/inventor testimony, concluding the term conveyed structure (rectifier or battery) and was not governed by §112 ¶6.
- Claim-construction disputes: Parties disputed (1) whether “voltage source means” invokes §112 ¶6, (2) scope of “direct current blocking means” (whether a DC blocking capacitor/diode must be at every output terminal), (3) meaning of “whenever...is defective,” and (4) meaning/waiver of “connected to.”
- JMOL / equivalence dispute: ULT sought JMOL arguing no equivalence for the “control means” limitation because accused products draw power after shutdown; Lighting Ballast argued accused devices perform the claimed functions (initiate and stop oscillations) and are equivalent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lighting Ballast) | Defendant's Argument (ULT) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "voltage source means" is governed by §112 ¶6 | Term conveys sufficient structure to a person of ordinary skill (rectifier or battery); extrinsic testimony supports non-means construction | Should be treated as means-plus-function; specification lacks corresponding structure so claims indefinite | Affirmed district court: not §112 ¶6; district court factual findings (extrinsic evidence) not clearly erroneous and convey structure |
| Scope of "direct current blocking means" (must be at every output terminal?) | Construction requiring DC-blocking capacitor/diode at each output terminal is proper; supports verdict of no anticipation | Court improperly added requirement; without it claims anticipated by prior art (JP references) | Affirmed: claim language requires DC blocking means coupled to output terminals; jury’s no-anticipation verdict supported by substantial evidence |
| Construction of "whenever ... is defective" (what "defective" means) | "Defective" means when the direct-current path between terminals is broken; this fits intrinsic disclosure | ULT contested construction (argued waived?) | Affirmed: court’s construction consistent with intrinsic record—"defective" = broken DC path |
| Whether ULT waived challenge to "connected to" and JMOL on "control means" equivalence | Lighting Ballast: ULT waived new construction by raising it only after trial; control means equivalency supported by evidence (accused products stop oscillations) | ULT argued "connected to" differs from "for connection to"; contends control circuits differ and disclaimed circuits that draw power after shutdown so no equivalents | Waiver of "connected to" affirmed; JMOL denial affirmed—jury verdict of equivalence supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (claim construction is a question of law for the court)
- Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir.) (en banc) (established de novo review of claim construction)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.) (intrinsic evidence controls claim construction; extrinsic evidence may be consulted)
- Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. (Sup. Ct.) (district-court subsidiary factual findings in claim construction reviewed for clear error)
- Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180 (procedural limits on appealing denial of summary judgment after trial)
- Rembrandt Data Techs., LP v. AOL, LLC, 641 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir.) (expert testimony can support that claim language conveys structure)
- O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir.) (preservation of claim-construction arguments when positions were made clear to the district court)