Uusi, LLC v. United States
131 Fed. Cl. 244
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs UUSI, LLC and OLDNAR allege the United States infringed multiple glow-plug and glow-plug-controller patents through AM General’s manufacture/use of vehicle starting systems; the opinion addresses claim construction for two patents: U.S. Pat. No. 5,327,870 (the ’870 Patent) and U.S. Pat. No. 6,148,258 (the ’258 Patent).
- The ’870 Patent claims a two-chamber tubular glow-plug controller housing with a temperature sensor in the smaller (threaded) first chamber and controller circuitry in the larger second chamber; disputed term: “remote” as used in Claim 9 describing location of power supply circuitry relative to the temperature sensor.
- The ’258 Patent claims an integrated electronic starting system (EESS) containing monitoring circuitry, a programmable controller (microprocessor), switching devices, and load-protection circuitry; disputed terms include: “a voltage signals,” “power correction after removal or an ignition signal,” “until,” and a means-plus-function limitation that adjusts preglow/afterglow based on sensed conditions.
- The Court applied Phillips (intrinsic-first) claim-construction principles and Nautilus for indefiniteness; defined the person of ordinary skill for each patent and treated certain claim phrases as obvious typographical/grammatical errors subject to correction if not reasonably debatable.
- The PTAB had instituted IPR for the ’258 Patent and issued preliminary constructions on some terms, but the Court considered PTAB institution findings non-binding and gave limited persuasive weight where appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “remote” (’870 Claim 9) | No further construction; a skilled artisan would know power supply must be separated from temp sensor to avoid heat interference | Term is indefinite because claims/specification give no objective boundary for how far “remote” is within the second chamber | Term is not indefinite; no additional construction required — a skilled artisan can with reasonable certainty place power supply at a distance in the constrained second chamber so sensor is not affected by heat |
| “a voltage signals” (’258 Claim 9) | Plain correction to plural (“voltage signals”); specification discusses multiple glow-plug voltage measurements | Indefinite; grammatical error cannot be corrected without debate | Court corrects grammatical error: construes as “voltage signals” (plural) |
| “power correction after removal or an ignition signal” (’258 Claim 1) | Typo(s): should read “power connection after removal of an ignition signal” based on claims/specification/matching method claim | Term is ambiguous/indefinite; prosecution amendment suggests wording was intentional | Court corrects to “power connection after removal of an ignition signal” — intrinsic evidence (Claim 48 and spec) supports correction |
| “until” (’258 Claim 1, load-protection) | No construction needed; claim allows maintaining connection beyond specified engine-speed threshold | Ordinary meaning: “up to the point, but not thereafter” (i.e., maintenance stops when speed reaches specified value) | Construed as “up to the point, but not thereafter,” consistent with specification’s automatic unlatching at the specified engine speed |
| Means-plus-function (Claim 29 of ’258) — function/structure | Function: adjust preglow/afterglow based on various sensed conditions; structure includes microprocessor/microcontroller and broader algorithmic disclosures in spec (including column 11, Fig. 11) | Function as stated; corresponding structure limited to microcontroller programmed according to algorithms actually disclosed (Chart 1 and Fig. 2) | Function adopted (including “based upon various sensed conditions”); corresponding structure limited to a microprocessor/microcontroller programmed to provide preglow/afterglow according to the algorithms in Chart 1 and timing diagram Fig. 2 (and equivalents); broader lists of inputs are not themselves algorithms |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (intrinsic-first framework for claim construction)
- Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) (patent claims must inform skilled artisans of scope with reasonable certainty)
- Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (specification highly relevant to claim meaning)
- Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (terms of degree require objective boundaries in light of specification)
- Liberty Ammunition, Inc. v. United States, 835 F.3d 1388 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (terms of degree not inherently indefinite but require objective boundaries)
- Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (court may correct obvious claim errors when correction is not reasonably debatable)
- CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 654 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (clarifies correction of typographical errors — consider skilled artisan perspective and written description)
- Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 732 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (microprocessor/microcontroller means-plus-function limitations are limited to disclosed algorithms)
- WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (a programmed general-purpose computer is limited by the disclosed algorithm)
- Function Media, LLC v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (specification can express algorithm in prose, flow chart, or other understandable terms)