Skedco, Inc. v. Strategic Operations, Inc.
685 F. App'x 956
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Skedco sued Strategic Operations (StOps) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,342,852, which claims a trauma-training system that simulates hemorrhage (claim 18 the lead independent claim).
- Two disputed claim limitations: (1) “at least one valve in fluid communication with said pump,” and (2) “a controller connected to said pump and said at least one valve.”
- District court construed “valve” and “pump” by their ordinary functions but held the pump and valve must be physically separate; it also construed “connected to” as requiring an activation mechanism joined/linked to components and further required ‘‘direct,’’ ‘‘independent,’’ and ‘‘physical’’ connections for control.
- Based on those constructions the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement (literal and under doctrine of equivalents) and dismissed Skedco’s complaint.
- On appeal the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, finding the district court erred in importing a separateness requirement for pump and valve and in limiting “connected to” to only direct/physical connections; the court remanded for further proceedings and left infringement questions (literal and equivalents) unresolved.
Issues
| Issue | Skedco's Argument | StOps' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “at least one valve in fluid communication with said pump” requires pump and valve to be physically separate | No — “in fluid communication” can include an internal valve; claims/specification do not require separateness | Yes — intrinsic record and drawings show separate structures; valve presumed distinct from pump | Reversed: claim language and specification permit a valve located within a pump; no separateness requirement imposed |
| Meaning of “a controller connected to said pump and said at least one valve” — must connections be direct/physical? | “Connected to” means interacts directly or indirectly; controller need not be physically/directly linked; indirect activation allowed | “Connected to” requires direct connections so controller directly controls pump and valve | Reversed in part: “connected to” covers direct or indirect linkages and need not be physical; but controller is an activation mechanism configured to control the pump and valve |
| Effect of claim-construction rulings on doctrine of equivalents ruling | Claim construction errors make district court’s equivalents ruling unreliable; remand appropriate | District court’s constructions supported its equivalents ruling | Vacated as moot in light of vacatur on literal-infringement constructions; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Dynacore Holdings Corp. v. U.S. Phillips Corp., 363 F.3d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Teva Pharm. U.S.A., Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) (claim construction as legal question with underlying factual findings)
- Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claims given ordinary and customary meaning; role of specification)
- Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("in fluid communication" not requiring separate structures)
- Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (separately claimed elements may be distinct when intrinsic record requires)
- Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods. Co., 717 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (ordinary meaning of "connected to" can include indirect linkages)
- Brookhill‑Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claim construction principles)