FOODIE PARTNERS v. JAMBA JUICE COMPANY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06-CV-12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, MARSHALL DIVISION
October 30, 2007, Decided
October 30, 2007, Filed
CORE TERMS: station, liquid, customer service, refrigerated, juice, patent, beverage, guard, specification, breath, pan, conduit, refrigeration, customer, distance, embodiment, space, consumer, barrier, finishing, invention, shallow, service station, reporting, parties agreed, ingredient, connected, drip, rinse, temperature
COUNSEL: [*1] James W Knowles, Mediator, Pro se, Wilson Sheehy Knowles Robertson & Cornelius, Tyler, TX.
For Foodie Partners, a Texas Partnership, Plaintiff: Diane K Lettelleir, LEAD ATTORNEY, Winstead Sechrest & Minick, Dallas, TX; Earl Glenn Thames, Jr, LEAD ATTORNEY, James Matthew Rowan, Potter Minton, Tyler, TX; Brandon Duane Gleason, Michael P Adams, Winstead Sechrest & Minick - Austin, Austin, TX; William P Ramey, III, Winstead Sechrest & Minick - The Woodlands, The Woodlands, TX.
For Jamba Juice Company, a California Corporation, Defendant: Robert D Becker, LEAD ATTORNEY, Greg Travis Warder, Michelle Gillette, Pamela S Merkadeau, Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Samuel Franklin Baxter, LEAD ATTORNEY, McKool Smith - Marshall, Marshall, TX; James Matthew Rowan, Potter Minton, Tyler, TX.
For Jamba Juice Company, a California Corporation, Counter Claimant: Samuel Franklin Baxter, LEAD ATTORNEY, McKool Smith - Marshall, Marshall, TX; Michelle Gillette, Pamela S Merkadeau, Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP, Palo Alto, CA.
For Foodie Partners, a Texas Partnership, Counter Defendant: Diane K Lettelleir, LEAD ATTORNEY, Winstead Sechrest & Minick, Dallas, TX.
JUDGES: JOHN D. LOVE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE [*2] JUDGE.
OPINION BY: JOHN D. LOVE
OPINION
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court now issues this claim construction opinion construing the terms in U.S. Patent No. 5,950,448 (hereinafter "the '448 patent"). Plaintiff Foodie Partners (hereinafter "Foodie") asserts that Defendant Jamba Juice Company has infringed, actively induced others to infringe, and contributorily infringed claims 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the '448 patent. 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 Although Foodie initially asserted infringement of claim 1 of the '448 patent as well, Foodie agreed to drop claim 1 prior to the Markman hearing, and it is no longer at issue in the case.
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE '448 PATENT
The '448 patent is entitled "System, Method and Apparatus For Dispensing and Combining Refrigerated Source Liquids," and deals with a system and apparatus for combining and dispensing liquids, ice and flavoring additives to create slush-type beverages.
APPLICABLE LAW
"It is a 'bedrock principle' of patent law that 'the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In [*3] claim construction, courts examine the patent's intrinsic evidence to define the patented invention's scope. See id.; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.
Enhanced Coverage LinkingU.S. Surgical Corp. -Search using:
Company Profile
News, Most Recent 60 Days
, 388 F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term's context in the asserted claim can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the claim's meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id. Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term's meaning. [*4] Id. For example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314-15.
Claims "must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part." Id. (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 978 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). "[T]he specification 'is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.'" Id. (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may define his own terms, give a claim term a different meaning than the term would otherwise possess, or disclaim or disavow the claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations, the inventor's lexicography governs. Id. Also, the specification may resolve ambiguous claim terms "where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alone." Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at 1325. [*5] But, "although the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the claims." Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim construction because a patent applicant may also define a term in prosecuting the patent. Home Diagnostics, Inc., v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("As in the case of the specification, a patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent.").
Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is "less significant than the intrinsic record in determining 'the legally operative meaning of claim language.'" Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quoting C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too broad or may not be indicative of how the [*6] term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert's conclusory, unsupported assertions as to a term's definition is entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic evidence is "less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms." Id.
Finally, it is important to remember that although the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, the Federal Circuit has cautioned against confining the claims to those embodiments. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. The roles of the specification are to "teach and enable those of skill in the art how to make and use the invention and to provide a best mode for doing so. One of the best ways to teach a person of ordinary skill how to make and use the invention is to provide an example of how to practice the invention in a particular case." Id. "'[T]he claims of the patent, not its specifications, measure the invention.'" Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004) [*7] (citation omitted). "Accordingly, particular embodiments appearing in the written description will not be used to limit claim language that has broader effect. And, even where a patent describes only a single embodiment, claims will not be interpreted 'restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope 'using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.'" Id. at 1117 (citations omitted).
The Court begins, as it must, with the words of the claim. See Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1324; see also CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("The terms used in the claims bear a presumption that they mean what they say and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those words by persons skilled in the relevant art.").
TERMS TO BE CONSTRUED
The terms at issue are: "a remotely located refrigeration unit," "refrigerated source liquid conduit line," "a customer service station," "a product finishing station," "a portion control mechanism," "consumer service station beverage tapping mechanism," "beverage flow reporting device," "beverage flow measurement device," "refrigerated source liquid," "a cold pan," [*8] "a drip pan," "a breath guard," and "integrated or detached drain board."
Agreed Terms
At the Markman hearing held on August 21, 2007, the parties agreed on the construction of the following terms: "portion control mechanism," "beverage flow reporting device," 2 "beverage flow measurement device," and "integrated or detached drain board." The parties agreed that the definition of "integrated or detached drain board" should be "a surface that is joined with the rinse sink, but can be separate from the rinse sink." See Transcript of Markman Hearing at 62-63, Foodie Partners v. Jamba Juice Co., Civ. No. 2:06-cv-12 (E.D. Tex. 2007). Both parties agreed that the definition of "beverage flow reporting device" should be "a mechanism or computer-based system which collects and reports beverage flow data." See Transcript of Markman Hearing at 49. The parties also agreed that the definition of "beverage flow measurement device" should be "a mechanism or computer-based system for ascertaining a quantity of flow of at least one source liquid." See Transcript of Markman Hearing at 49-50. Finally, the parties agreed that "portion control mechanism" means "a mechanism for controlling the amount of [*9] source liquid dispensed according to preset volume or time metered constraints." See Transcript of Markman Hearing at 42-43.
