Perfect Curve, Inc. v. Hat World, Inc.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127478
| D. Mass. | 2013Background
- Perfect Curve owns U.S. Patent No. 6,223,910 covering a removable cap-holder ("Cap Rack") that attaches to an elongate spine and supports baseball caps.
- Hat World sells competing hat display products; Perfect Curve sued for patent infringement and Hat World counterclaimed non-infringement and invalidity.
- The parties disputed construction of eight claim terms (e.g., “fingers,” “narrow slot,” “jaws,” “normally clamp,” crown-support phrases, and “approximately triangular shaped”).
- The court held a Markman hearing and applied the Phillips claim-construction framework (claims, specification, prosecution history, extrinsic evidence).
- The court issued constructions for most disputed terms, left some terms to their ordinary meaning, and issued an amended construction after partial reconsideration regarding the “crown support” terms to avoid excluding the preferred embodiment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| “pair of forwardly extending fingers” / “fingers” | Means projections that simply diverge from a common start; forward ends may reconnect | Fingers must be separate (not connected at forward ends) as described by bifurcation in spec | Construed as “two distinct forwardly-extending projections that are not connected at their forward ends” |
| “narrow slot” | A small opening adapted to facilitate entry (functional) | A small space separating the forward-most ends of the fingers (size/location) | Construed as “a small space separating the forward-most ends of the fingers” |
| “a pair of ... jaws” | Two opposing grippers that grip the spine (structural/purpose) | Include functional limitation that jaws must substantially separate and collapse to open/close | Construed as “two opposing grippers that are capable of gripping and releasing the spine” (rejects “substantially”) |
| “the jaws being separable to release their grip on the spine …” | Jaws can be moved apart to release the spine (Plaintiff's phrasing) | Include detailed collapse/separate language and bias toward each other (Hat World) | Construed as “the two opposing grippers can be moved a distance apart from each other to release from the spine …” |
| “normally clamp” | Means in absence of external forces jaws grip the spine (ordinary meaning) | Indefinite; unclear meaning and prosecution history raised §112 issue | Term not specially construed; left to ordinary meaning (no indefiniteness) |
| Crown-support phrases (claims 1 & 15) | Support need only contact/receive a significant portion; avoid excluding preferred embodiment | Support must have width/depth to contact/receive and support the majority of the upper crown to resist deformation | Amended: both phrases require a surface shaped to support a partially-folded crown with width and depth sufficient to contact/receive and support the majority of the upper crown and resist deformation (court modified earlier wording to avoid excluding preferred embodiment) |
| “approximately triangular shaped” | No special construction needed; ordinary meaning | Require rear portion wider than forward portion (based on preferred embodiment) | Left to ordinary meaning; court refused to import preferred-embodiment limitation |
Key Cases Cited
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) (claim construction is a question of law for the court)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (use intrinsic evidence first; meaning to a person of ordinary skill at filing date)
- O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (no construction required when terms have ordinary meaning and resolve the dispute)