111 Fed. Cl. 1
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- This patent case is in the United States Court of Federal Claims, No. 11-268C, SecurityPoint Holdings, Inc. v. United States, filed February 20, 2013, under 28 U.S.C. §1498.
- SecurityPoint alleges TSA’s use of its tray-and-cart system at airport security checkpoints infringes claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,888,460 (the 460 patent).
- The 460 patent concerns recycling trays through security screening checkpoints using movable tray carts and advertising on the trays’ interiors or bottoms.
- Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 12-15 are asserted; Claim 1 describes a method involving a first tray cart at the proximate end of a scanning device, removing a tray, passing it through the scanner, receiving it in a second cart at the distal end, and moving the second cart to the proximate end.
- The parties filed claim-construction briefs on seven terms; plaintiff argues plain meaning suffices, with preferred constructions if needed.
- Markman hearing occurred November 14, 2012; the court provides constructions for the terms and notes related schedule amendments.]
- The court adopts specific constructions for key terms (tray, trays, tray cart, proximate end, distal end, nestable, adapted, receiving).
- The court also modifies discovery deadlines (expert reports due by March 8, 2013; rebuttals by April 10, 2013) and schedules a status conference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of ‘tray’ | Trays are base structures with upward walls; plural implies multiple trays. | Tray may encompass sizes; defend’s view is broader. | Tray = base with upwardly extending walls; ‘trays’ = more than one tray; no size limitation. |
| Meaning of ‘tray cart’ | Tray cart may be a movable cart or rack; expert testimony supports movable cart. | Tray cart could be a cart or rack; should cover holding or storing trays. | Tray cart = movable cart capable of holding one or more trays; not a rack; does not require storing function. |
| Meaning of ‘proximate end’ and ‘distal end’ | Proximate and distal ends refer to ends of the scanning device relevant to entry/exit points. | Definitions should be precise endpoints reflecting the device ends. | Proximate end = end of the scanner where an object enters; distal end = end where it exits. |
| Meaning of ‘nestable’ | Nestable means capable of fitting compactly within one another; allows multiple sizes. | Nestable means capable of fitting at least partially within one another. | Nestable = capable of fitting compactly within one another. |
| Meaning of ‘adapted’ | Adapted = suited; not limited to specially designed. | Adapted = specially designed or made for a specific purpose. | Adapted = suited; avoids reading in unnecessary limitations of special design. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim terms construed in light of ordinary meaning and intrinsic evidence)
- Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc., 256 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (extrinsic evidence used cautiously and not to contradict claim scope)
- U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (plain meaning if unambiguous; read in full patent context)
- Harris Corp. v. United States, 114 F.3d 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (avoid adding meaningless verbiage; avoid surplusage in claim construction)
