PureWick Corporation v. Sage Products, LLC
1:19-cv-01508
| D. Del. | Feb 17, 2021Background
- PureWick sued Sage over claim construction disputes for four patents (U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,287,508; 10,376,407; 10,226,376; 10,390,989) relating to urine‑collection/wicking devices.
- The parties briefed and submitted a joint appendix with intrinsic (patents, prosecution histories, IPR) and extrinsic evidence (experts, tutorials, articles).
- The court held a Markman hearing, announced rulings from the bench, and issued an order construing eight disputed claim terms/phrases.
- The disputes centered on whether several claim phrases required express constructions or importing of limitations from specification/prosecution (e.g., meaning of “closed,” “array,” “moisture‑wicking article,” “secured over the array,” “casing,” and how a chamber is defined).
- The court applied standard claim‑construction principles (intrinsic evidence primary; extrinsic evidence subsidiary) and required clear, unambiguous disclaimer before importing negative limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “the container is closed... and at least one outlet port” / “container defining a chamber that is closed at both ends...” | No construction; plain meaning | Limit to only the disclosed openings; outlet port is an opening; no end openings | Plain and ordinary meaning; “closed” clarified as one way in, one way out, container holds liquid; do not treat outlet port as an ‘‘opening’’ or import exclusivity of openings |
| “array” | Means “a group of two or more” | Means “a regular arrangement” | “Array” = “a group of two or more” (covers irregular arrangements like fritted glass) |
| “moisture‑wicking article” / “wicking material” | “[A]n article that moves moisture by capillary action from one surface to the other” | A permeable material defined by high absorption/permeation rate (examples) | Adopt plaintiff’s construction: moves moisture by capillary action; reject import of absorption/permeation rate requirements |
| “secured over the array of openings” | “Attached over the array of openings” | “Held in place over the array of openings” (dispute whether securing must precede deployment) | “Held in place over the array of openings,” clarified: must be secured prior to deployment/placement and independent of deployment |
| “casing having [or defining] a fluid reservoir at a first end... a fluid outlet at a second end” | “An outer cover having [or defining] a fluid reservoir... and a fluid outlet” | casing must surround/enclose filling and cannot be mere backing/impermeable layer with securing portions | Adopt plaintiff’s phrasing: “an outer cover having [or defining] a fluid reservoir... and a fluid outlet”; do not import defendant’s positive or negative limitations |
| “the chamber being defined at least partially by... the porous material and the... layer of impermeable material” | Plain meaning | Add limitation: no other materials may lie between porous material and impermeable layer (based on prosecution disclaimer) | Plain meaning with clarification that porous material and impermeable layer must each touch the chamber at some point; reject defendant’s broad disclaimer import |
| “a chamber [of/is void space] positioned” | No construction needed | Propose “an enclosed space or compartment placed in a certain position” | No construction; plain meaning; court declined to add ‘‘enclosed’’ limitation (inlets/outlet exist) |
| “opening of the cavity” (claim 7, ’407 Patent) | Fix antecedent or treat as plain “opening” | Indefinite (lack of antecedent basis) | Term given plain and ordinary meaning for now; defendant failed to prove indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence; may be revisited after discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) (claim construction is a question of law though subsidiary fact findings may be necessary)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim terms given ordinary meaning to a person of skill; specification is primary guide)
- Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (specification is the single best guide to claim meaning)
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (prosecution history is intrinsic evidence relevant to claim scope)
- Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014) (indefiniteness standard requires clear and convincing evidence that claims lack reasonable certainty)
- Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (to disavow claim scope, specification must contain clear expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction)
- U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (claim construction clarifies disputed meanings; not an exercise in redundancy)
- Liebel‑Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (claims not limited to single embodiment absent clear intent)
- Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (different words in a claim are presumed to have different meanings)
- Hill‑Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (specification must show clear intention to limit claim scope to read claims restrictively)