Pacing Technologies, LLC v. Garmin International, Inc.
778 F.3d 1021
| Fed. Cir. | 2015Background
- Pacing Technologies appeals a grant of summary judgment that Garmin’s devices do not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,101,843.
- The patent is directed to pacing users in repetitive-motion activities by providing a tempo or pace cue (e.g., beat of a song or visual signals).
- Garmin devices design workouts with intervals and target pace values, displaying pace but not producing music or tempo cues.
- Claim 25 is the sole asserted independent claim and the district court held the preamble is a limitation, requiring a playback device that can reproduce pace information as a tempo.
- The district court construed playback device as one that plays back pace information, and held the preamble limits the scope of the claim.
- Pacing argued the devices still infringe because they ‘play’ pace information, while Garmin contends the devices do not produce a sensible tempo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the preamble of claim 25 is limiting | Pacing argues preamble is not limiting and should not constrain claim scope. | Garmin argues preamble provides antecedent basis and is limiting. | Preamble is limiting; it provides necessary antecedent basis for claim terms. |
| Whether the system must produce a sensible tempo | Pacing contends playback can include tempo-related information even if not a metronome tempo. | Garmin contends the system need not produce a sensible tempo to meet the claim. | The system must be capable of producing a sensible tempo for pacing the user. |
| Whether the specification disavows non-sensible-tempo embodiments | Pacing relies on embodiments where playback does not produce a tempo. | Garmin argues no clear disclaimer excludes non-sensible-tempo embodiments. | The specification contains clear disavowal limiting to a tempo-producing system. |
| Whether Garmin’s devices meet the required playback limitation | Pacing asserts devices display or repeat pace information and thus satisfy playback. | Garmin asserts devices do not play pace information as audio/video/visible signals. | Garmin devices do not produce a sensible tempo playback; no infringement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Teva Pharm. USA Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (U.S. 2015) (governs de novo review when only intrinsic evidence is involved)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim construction deference and use of specification/prosecution history)
- Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (lexicography and intent require clear definitions in the specification)
- Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (lexicography and disclaimer standards in claim interpretation)
- Aug. Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd., 655 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (disavowal and scope of embodiments in claim construction)
- SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (disavowal and disclaimer standards)
- AGA Med. Corp. v. Inova Labs., Inc., 717 F.3d 929 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (disavowal considerations in claim scope)
- Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (disavowal and limitations to prevent misunderstanding of invention)
- Chi. Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC, 677 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (disavowal and limitation when the specification disparages alternatives)
- Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (disclaimer when the specification describes features as essential)
- SafeTCare Mfg., Inc. v. Tele-Made, Inc., 497 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (disclaimer when describing essential features)
- Regents of Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp., 717 F.3d 929 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (scope implications of stated objects in the patent)