The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, applying the recent Phillips decision, upheld summary judgment of non-infringement of Terlep’s patent for omni-directional light-emitting diode (LED) lamps based on the Court’s construction of the claim term "clear." Terlep v. The Brinkmann Corp., Case No. 04-1337 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2005) (Linn, J.).
The district court construed the term "clear" to mean transparent, but Terlep argued the term could also cover translucent. The Federal Circuit, quoting language from its record en banc Phillips decision that "the 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," upheld the district court construction.
The Federal Circuit embarked on a Phillips analysis that involved first looking to the claim language itself. There, the Court concluded the language of the claims provided little guidance on the meaning of the term "clear." Then the Court turned to the written description, including the background and prior art sections, that described unsuccessful attempts used in the past for applying diffusion directly to LED surfaces. The Court specifically noted the discussion of an omni-directional LED lamp that did not use diffusion. The Federal Circuit concluded these passages read together implicitly draw a distinction between holders that diffuse light and those that transmit light without obstruction. Thus, the Court reasoned the specification supported a construction of the term "clear" that, consistent with the district court’s construction of "transparent," transmitts light without appreciable scattering and does not include holders that diffuse light.
The Federal Circuit also reviewed the prosecution history, concluding that like the admitted prior art, it supported the district court’s claim construction. Specifically, Terlep amended the claim to add the language "a clear plastic tubular holder" and then relied on that language to distinguish the invention from the prior art, stating the prior disclosed LED’s to diffuse the light.
The Federal Circuit also concluded the district court attached the appropriate weight to dictionary definitions as permitted under Phillips.
As Terlep did not dispute that the defendant’s products lacked a clear plastic holder and failed to rebut the Festo presumption by establishing its patent was entitled to cover, as equivalents, LED lamps having diffuse holders, the Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
