APLF.org
AboutMembersEventsNewsContactJobs
Issue 06/01 | January 3, 2005
Requirements for claim construction in a preliminary injunction proceeding

In Shuffle Master, Inc. v. Vendingdata Corp. (Fed. Cir., December 27, 2005, not citable as precedent) the court discussed the requirements for claim construction in a preliminary injunction proceeding:

We have held that a district court does not have to conduct a comprehensive and final claim construction in a preliminary injunction proceeding. Sofamor Danek Group, Inc. v. DePuy-Motech, Inc., 74 F.3d 1216, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Similarly, it is not necessary for a court to conduct an explicit claim construction if the claim construction issue is a simple one that needs no analysis, or in which there is no reasonable ground for dispute as to claim meaning. Toro Co. v. Deere & Co., 355 F.3d 1313, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, a district court in a preliminary injunction proceeding has the duty to determine whether the movant is likely to prevail on the merits, and if that question turns on a contested issue of claim construction, the court must give the claim construction issue the attention necessary to determine the likelihood of success. In this case, the dispute over the meaning of the "set of cards" limitation is central to determining whether Shuffle Master is likely to prevail on the merits of its infringement claim. The district court was therefore required to provide some form of claim construction, even if abbreviated, preliminary, or tentative.

Shuffle Master argues that the phrase "at least one set of cards within the apparatus" means any number of cards that serve as the source from which the apparatus delivers hands to the delivery tray. Under that construction, it appears likely that the PokerOne device would infringe, since the internal stack in the PokerOne forms within the device and serves as the source from which dealing begins after the collection reaches a size equal to two hands of cards of the game being played. On the other hand, VendingData argues that the "set of cards within the apparatus" must be construed to refer to a set consisting of no more than one hand of cards. Under that interpretation, it appears likely that the PokerOne device would not infringe, since the internal stack accumulates cards until it contains at least two hands of cards before dealing begins. Thus, resolution of the claim construction issue framed by the parties is of critical importance to the issue of infringement.

. . . While claim construction is a question of law, the district court's analysis is important to the process of claim construction, and in this context, as in others, we decline to construe the claim without the guidance of the district court's construction. See Nazomi Commcns., Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("This court's review of a district court's claim construction, albeit without deference, nonetheless is not an independent analysis in the first instance. Moreover, in order to perform such a review, this court must be furnished 'sufficient findings and reasoning to permit meaningful appellate scrutiny.'"); Anchor Wall Sys., Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("In order to review the court's finding of noninfringement, we must know what meaning and scope the district court gave to the asserted claims."); Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (vacating and remanding decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences because it failed to "set forth . . . specific findings of fact and conclusions of law adequate to form a basis for . . . review"; noting that "[c]laim construction must . . . be explicit, at least as to any construction disputed by [the] parties"); Graco, Inc. v. Binks Mfg. Co., 60 F.3d 785, 791 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("entire omission of a claim construction analysis from the opinion . . . provide[s] an independent basis for remand"). We therefore vacate the preliminary injunction and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.


To discuss the above or any patent law matter, contact William F. Heinze (bill.heinze@tkhr.com) at Thomas, Kayden, Horstemeyer & Risley LLP in Atlanta, Georgia USA.

The information contained in this email is provided for informational purposes only and does not represent legal advice. Neither the APLF nor the author intends to create an attorney client relationship by providing this information to you through this message.

APLF - PO Box 7418 - Washington, DC - 20044-7418

AboutMembersEventsNewsContactJobs