Reversing, in part, a summary judgment ruling of non-infringement on a motion filed five months into the case based on a revised claim construction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the defendant infringed multiple claims of a first patent, but not the claims of a second patent, and affirmed both the district court's denial of additional discovery related to the non-infringed claims and its dismissal of plaintiff's trade secret claim. Accent Packaging, Inc. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., Case No. 12-1011 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 4, 2013) (Prost, J.).

The claims of the first patent require an "operator assembly including ... elongated operator bodies, with each of the operator bodies being operably coupled with a respective one of said gripper, knotter, cutting element and cover..." Like the claim terms "a" and "an" used in an open-ended claim, the Court held that construction of the terms "each" and "a respective one" in the patent claims would not be limited to "one and only one" of the type of connections specified in the claim because "the preferred embodiment features an elongated operator body that is operably coupled to one or more operator elements....[and] 'a claim interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment from the scope of the claim is rarely, if ever, correct.'" The Court concluded that the defendant's accused device infringed the properly construed claims. However, another claim of the first patent and the asserted claims of the second patent each required a mount with a pivot "arc of at least about 90o." The Court affirmed the previous holding that a mechanical stop limiting the otherwise free rotation of the accused device's pivot arc to 68o precluded a finding of infringement. The Court rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the use of screws as a temporary fastener for the mechanical stop evidenced an intent or instruction to remove the part: "'[t]he fact that it is possible' to alter the [accused device] so that the cover can be pivoted through a ninety degree arc 'is not enough, by itself, to justify a finding that the manufacture and sale' of the device infringe (sic) [Plaintiff]'s patent rights." The Court also affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for additional discovery regarding "whether [the defendant] intended or anticipated that the device would be operated without the 'stop'" the frequency of its removal, and purposes for same. Under the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit precedent, the Court found that the plaintiff failed to 'set forth a plausible basis for believing that specified facts... probably exist...' following the plaintiff's previous inspection of the defendant's device and related technical documents. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's state trade secret claim because the plaintiff freely introduced its reverse-engineered product into commerce, and the plaintiff's patents publicly disclosed the allegedly secret information.

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.