Holding: The claims, not the preferred embodiments described in the specification, define an invention. Even when all of the embodiments in a written description depict a certain feature, this feature is only imported into the claims if expressly stated in the claim or explicitly defined in the specification.
IQRIS sued Point Blank and National Molding for infringement of US Patent No. 7,814,567 and US Patent No. 8,256,020. The ‘567 Patent and the ‘020 Patent share a common specification and pertain to quick release systems for tactical vests that are worn by soldiers, law enforcement officers, and other first responders. In certain situations, it may be necessary to quickly remove the tactical vest for the safety of the person wearing the vest.
The ‘567 Patent and the ‘020 Patent describe a quick release system that includes connectors on the front portion 10 of the vest that each include a hook 13 and an anchor strap 15 to attach the front portion of the vest to the rear portion of the vest. Each of the hooks 13 includes a release knob 17 to move the hook 13 into an open position. Cords 18 connect to the release knobs 17 or the hooks 13, so that when a pull cord 16 is pulled, the releasable hooks 13 disengage simultaneously and detach the front portion 10 of the vest from the rear portion of the vest.
National Molding produces plastic components for quick-release tactical vests that are incorporated onto Point Blank vests. These quick-release systems include a trigger that sits on top of a trigger manifold that acts as a base for the trigger. The systems also use Bowden cables, which are made from a wire positioned inside a sheath and which are able to transmit mechanical force by movement of the wire. Multiple Bowden cables are connected to the trigger and activating the trigger moves the wires within the sheath to release buckles on the vest.
The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement to Point Blank, finding that the accused products lacked a “pull cord” as required in the asserted claims of the ‘567 Patent and the ‘020 Patent. IQRIS appealed alleging that the district court’s construction of the term “pull cord” was erroneous. The district court construed the term “pull cord” as a “cord that can be directly pulled by a user to disengage a releasable fastener or releasable hook.” Since the quick-release systems offered by National Molding and included on Point Blank’s vests are activated by triggers that are a rigid structure consisting of a lever, and not a cord, the district court found no infringement. The district court also found that the Bowden cables did not act as a pull cord since they could not be directly accessed or pulled by the user.
The district court also found no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents since the National Molding release systems operated in a different way than the system described in the ‘567 Patent and the ‘020 Patent by allowing the user to apply indirect force to the internal wire. The district court also held that IQRIS’ criticism of cutaway vest systems that include handles in the background section of the ‘567 Patent and the ‘020 Patent further prevented a system using a handle as being equivalent to the pull cord.
The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement, finding that the district court erred in its construction of the term “pull cord” to require that the cord is directly pulled by the user. The Federal Circuit first looked to the claim language to determine whether this term is limited by who is pulling the cord. The claims state that the pull cord is coupled to a releasable hook and that the pull cord actuates the hook to disengage the hook to which the pull cord is coupled. However, the claims do not discuss who or what pulls the cord.
The Federal Circuit then looked to the specification, which calls the element 16, which is directly pulled, a pull cord, but simply calls the element 18, which is indirectly pulled, a cord. Despite this evidence, the Federal Circuit declined to limit the term “pull cord” to only the preferred embodiments shown in the specification. In this case, there was no reason to modify the ordinary meaning of the term “pull cord” in view of the embodiments shown in the specification, when the claims were silent as to whether the pull cord must be directly pulled. It is the claims, rather than specification, that should define the metes and bounds of the patented invention.
The Federal Circuit also found that the district court erred by construing the term “pull cord” to exclude cords that include a handle. Once again, the claims are silent about whether the pull cord can or cannot include a handle. Additionally, the specification showed circular balls at the end of the pull cords 16, suggested that the term “pull cords” should be allowed to include handles. Although the background section of the ‘567 Patent and the ‘020 Patent criticized the use of handles for cutaway vests, this criticism was based on the reassembly of the vests being tedious when needing to reroute the cables through rings and loops, not on the general use of handles. Therefore, IQRIS did not disclaim claim scope, since it did not state that handles should never be used.
Leave a Reply