Home » Patent Law Updates » New Judicial Opinions » Current Summary
Patent Law Summary
Zipwall, LLC v. Fastcap. LLC
05-11852-JLT, 2007 WL 1040679, D.Mass., 04/09/2007
Holding
In construing a patent claim, the court relies on intrinsic evidence, including the claims, specification, and patent file history if presented in evidence, extrinsic evidence, including expert testimony, dictionary definitions, learned treatises, and principles of interpretation. Patent claims are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, which is the meaning known by a person of ordinary skill in the invention's art. The patent specification is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term; however, a court must be careful not to read a limitation from the specification into the claims.
Detailed Summary
Plaintiff’s patents claimed various products, methods, and systems related to erecting dust barriers using poles, clips, and plastic sheets. The poles incorporated plaintiff’s patented technology that allowed a single person to construct a dust barrier without ladders, by attaching the curtain to a “coupling” mechanism at the end of the pole, raising the pole to the ceiling, and then repeating the process with adjacent curtain segments and other poles. Defendant produced a product known as the “Third Hand,” which was basically a pole with a ratchet and clamp mechanism that allowed user to jack up the head of the pole. This pole can be used to secure molding, hold drywall in place, and stabilize loads in transit.
Plaintiff (patent holder) filed this patent infringement suit against defendant (competitor) involving its patents on dust barrier technology. Parties brought motions for summary judgment. With respect to plaintiff’s ‘615 patent, the court found that on the basis of its claims, abstract, figures, summary of the invention, detailed description of preferred embodiments, and prosecution, it was established that a “compression mechanism” was a mechanism that provided the same action as a spring; i.e., the mechanism itself was sufficiently compressible to easily allow users to adjust the placement of the curtain mount, and when compressed generated an outward force.
The court ruled that defendant’s ratchet device was not compressible in the same way a spring device was compressible. Defendant’s product therefore did not contain a “compression mechanism,” and fell outside the scope of plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the court ruled that there being no genuine issue of material fact for trial, the defendant is entitled to a judgment of non-infringement of the patent.
Service
Link to this article · 
Send via E-mail · 
Printable Version (opens in new window)
