Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, 669 F.3d 1362

Thorner and Virtual Reality Feedback Corp. alleged Sony and related Sony entities infringed U.S. patent 6,422,941 on a tactile feedback system for video games.
District court construed disputed terms and the parties stipulated to noninfringement.
Two disputed terms are “flexible pad” and “attached to said pad.”
District court defined “flexible” as “capable of being noticeably flexed with ease” and limited “attached to said pad” to exterior attachments.
The court later vacated the construction and remanded based on improper definitions.
Appellants appeal the claim-construction rulings, seeking de novo review of term interpretations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether “attached to said pad” admits internal attachments	Thorner: plain meaning includes internal or external attachment	Sony: designation binds to exterior attachment; embedded differs	Term has plain meaning; not narrowed by lexicography or disavowal
Whether “flexible pad” is limited to “noticeably flexed with ease”	District court misdefined; flexible means semi-rigid per specification	Sony: foam semi-rigid fits noticeability standard	Flexible means semi-rigid; infringement analysis governs degree of flexibility; remand appropriate

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claims construed by ordinary meaning in context of specification)
Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (disavowal/lexicography standards for claim terms)
CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (patentee as lexicographer requires explicit definition)
Scimed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (disavowal via specification must be clear and unequivocal)
Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com, 582 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (explicit redefinition needed for broad claim terms)