/>iThe Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s summary judgement of noninfringement, finding that the lower court had improperly construed the claim term “pull cord.” The district court had erroneously limited the term to a directly pulled cord that lacks a handle. The Federal Circuit determined that these restrictions were unsupported by the intrinsic evidence and directed the district court to apply the correct claim construction in accordance with the Federal Circuit’s guidance and redetermine infringement using the correct claim construction.
Case Background
IQRIS Technologies LLC sued Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. and National Molding, Inc. in the Southern District of Florida, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,814,567 and 8,256,020. These two patents share a common specification and are both directed to quick release systems on tactical vests, designed to allow soldiers and first responders to quickly remove their vests in emergency situations. According to the patent specifications, removal and reassembling of prior art tactical vests are time-consuming, and the asserted patents overcome these problems by providing a protective garment with “a reduction in operating parts, faster release, and quicker reassembly than the systems currently in use.”
The accused products – Point Blank’s tactical vests equipped with National Molding’s “Quad Release” and “Evil Twin” quick-release systems – use Bowden cables, which consist of a wire inside a sheath, to activate the trigger, which in turn disengage the vest by releasing the buckles.
During the litigation, the parties disputed the meaning of the team “pull cord” in the asserted claims. IQRIS argued the term should be construed as “a component which, when put into tension, can result in activating the releasable fastener,” while the defendants proposed construing the term as “a cord on the exterior of the ballistic garment grasped by a user that is capable of disengaging the releasable fastener or releasable hook when a user pulls on the pull cord.” The parties also disputed the location of the pull cord, but the district court did not address this issue, and instead construed the term to mean “cord that can be directly pulled by a user to disengage a releasable fastener or releasable hook.” The district court further decided that the patents “disparage” prior art systems that include “a handle that is attached to the cables[.]” Therefore, when analyzing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, the district court interpreted “pull cord” to exclude pull cords that include a handle. Based on its construction of “pull cord”, the district court granted summary judgement of noninfringement, holding the accused products lacked a claimed “pull cord.”
Issues
The primary issue on appeal was whether the district court had erred in construing “pull cord” to (1) require a user to pull on the pull cord directly; and (2) exclude cords that include a handle.
Holding and Reasoning
1. Directly pulled
The Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in its construction of “pull cord” by imposing requirements that neither the claim language nor the specification supported. The court found that nothing in the claim explicitly required the pull cord to be directly pulled by a user. The claims merely suggest a “pull cord” is a cord that actuates a releasable hook when pulled, without specifying who or what pulls the cord, or whether the pulling is direct or indirect.
While the preferred embodiment depicted a pull cord that is directly pulled, Federal Circuit precedent instructed that limitations from specifications should not be imported into claims when the claims do not expressly require them.
2. Excluding a handle
The court also rejected the district court’s construction that a pull cord cannot include a handle. The patent figures depict a circular ball at the end of the pull cord, which suggests that the inventors contemplated cords with handles. Further, while the patent specification criticizes prior-art cutaway vests for requiring a time-consuming reassembly process, it does not disparage the use of handles. The district court had incorrectly inferred that the pull cord should exclude handles because the specification did not clearly disavow such claim scope where the pull cord includes handles.
Because the district court’s summary judgement was based on an erroneous claim construction, the Federal Circuit vacated the ruling. The court declined to decide whether the accused products infringe under the correct construction, and remanded for future proceedings.
