Plaint Meaning Bars Adding Limitations to Claims

LSI Industries, Inc., v. Imagepoint, Inc., [2007-1292, -1293, -1294, -1295] (May 22, 2008) [LINN, Rader, Wolle] NON-PRECEDENTIAL The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded summary judgment of non-infringement because the district court incorrectly construed many of the terms on which the summary judgment of non-infringement was predicated, and because for the correctly construed terms, the record was insufficient for to determine whether summary judgment of non-infringement was appropriate.
DISCUSSION: At issued were U.S. Patent Nos. 5,682,694, 5,983,543, 6,125,565, 6,298,589, 6,631,576, and 6,843,011 on restaurant menu boards. The Federal Circuit rejected the district court’s construction of “retention member” and “divider member” because the plain language of the claims did not require these limitations, and the presence of similar limitations in dependent claims, which strongly suggests that the independent claims should not be so limited. Moreover, the patentee’s statements in the prosecution history were not sufficient to constitute a clear and unambiguous disavowal of non-female divider members or non-male retention members. The Federal Circuit rejected the district court’s construction of “channel means” finding that “channel” was sufficient structural language to overcome the presumption that §112, ¶6. The Federal Circuit rejected the construction of “without disassembly of frame”, “mating male and female connection members”, “display device”, and “display module”. The Federal Circuit vacated in order for the district court to reassess infringement based on the proper constructions, and with respect to those terms for which it affirmed the constructions, it remanded because the record insufficient to determine if summary judgment of non-infringement was appropriate.