Wundaformer, LLC v. Flex Studios, Inc.
680 F. App'x 925
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- WundaFormer owns U.S. Patent No. 8,602,953 covering a Pilates reformer with built-in "ergonomic purchases" (e.g., rotatable bench) that translate between "deployed" and "stowed" positions.
- The specification defines "deployed" to mean a component "intended to be used" by a user; "stowed" is defined principally by collapsing the reformer volume and being not reachable for the same purchase as when deployed; the specification describes a bench usable as a seat in both positions.
- Claims 11 and 15 recite a rectangular frame with "transverse ends" each "comprising a pair of bases and a transverse member connected therebetween," and ergonomic purchases translatable to stowed/deployed positions and arrested by the transverse end.
- The district court construed "stowed" to require that the ergonomic purchase "is not intended for use by a user exercising by means of the reformer," and construed the "transverse member" language to allow only a single horizontal crossbar per transverse end.
- After claim construction the parties stipulated to non-infringement and the district court dismissed; WundaFormer appealed the two constructions.
- The Federal Circuit held both district-court constructions erroneous and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Construction of "stowed" | "Stowed" should not include an intent-to-use limitation; specification allows a stowed component to be used for a different purchase (e.g., bench as seat). | District court/Flex argued "stowed" must contrast "deployed" and thus exclude components "intended for use" (intent-to-use). | Reversed: "stowed" does not require that the component "is not intended for use"; specification governs and stowed may still permit some use. |
| Scope of "transverse member" / plurality | "A transverse member" and "comprising" allow one or more transverse members; specification contemplates additional transverse members. | District court construed to a single horizontal crossbar (one transverse member). | Reversed: "comprising" and "a" permit one or more transverse members; district court improperly excluded multiple transverse members. |
Key Cases Cited
- Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) (claim construction standard: legal questions reviewed de novo; subsidiary factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings Inc., 405 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("comprising" is open-ended and does not exclude additional elements)
- Baldwin Graphic Sys. Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (indefinite article "a" can mean "one or more")