Pages

People

IP Case Updates Blog

Practices

Explore the latest in patent, trademark, and copyright cases on the Merchant & Gould LLP blog. Stay informed with expert insights on intellectual property law updates.

Home - IP Case Updates Blog

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a dismissal of a patent infringement lawsuit because the district court did not conduct sufficient claim construction proceedings.

core/paragraph

The Oct. 18 decision in UTTO Inc. v. Metrotech Corp. is significant because it specifically authorizes district courts to dismiss patent infringement lawsuits without a separate Markman hearing, but only when the meaning of a claim term is clear and case-dispositive, such that no additional claim construction proceedings are necessary.

UTTO sued Metrotech for patent infringement. The patent was directed to methods for detecting and identifying "buried assets," i.e., underground utility lines using a networked mobile computing device. Claim 1 included two key limitations: "receiving … a group of buried asset data points corresponding to a particular buried asset" and "generating, based on the group of buried asset data points, a two-dimensional area comprising the buffer zone."

UTTO also moved for a preliminary injunction, which Metrotech opposed. Metrotech also moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The motion for preliminary injunction was denied because UTTO failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of infringement.

In its ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California construed the term "group of buried asset data points" to require "two or more" buried asset data points for each buried asset. While acknowledging that the specification referred in two places to "one or more buried assets data points" for a given buried asset, it stated that those references occurred "[o]nly twice" and "neither supports the ordinary reading of the claim language itself."

Subsequently, the district court dismissed the first, second and third amended complaints, relying on its claim construction from its denial of the motion for preliminary injunction. UTTO appealed.

<strong>The Federal Circuit Ruling</strong>

UTTO argued that district courts may never engage in claim construction in deciding a motion to dismiss. UTTO also substantively challenged the district court's claim construction. The Federal Circuit held that district courts can construe claims on a motion to dismiss without a separate Markman hearing. The court noted that both claim construction and Rule 12(b)(6 dismissals are questions of law, and that claim construction can often be performed based on intrinsic evidence alone, i.e., the claim language and specification itself. In such cases, a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal may be appropriate.

As to the scope of necessary claim construction proceedings, the court noted that district<br>courts have wide latitude. Indeed, "[a]s long as the trial court construes the claims to the extent necessary to determine whether the accused device infringes, the court may approach the task in any way that it deems best" and "sometimes a claim's meaning may be so clear on the only point that is ultimately material to deciding the dismissal motion that no additional process is necessary."

Applying these rules, the court held that further claim construction proceedings were necessary. The third amended complaint alleged that "[a] 'group' in the mathematical or computing sense of the word could refer to a single set of data upon which operations are performed."

In opposing the motion to dismiss, UTTO indicated its intent to present additional supporting materials at an upcoming claim construction proceeding, which had not been abrogated or altered. And by that time, the parties had filed a joint claim construction statement, including UTTO's submission of several pieces of supporting extrinsic evidence: encyclopedia articles, founder testimony and an expert report. Moreover, UTTO had filed its opening claim construction brief elaborating on its arguments and the extrinsic evidence.

The Federal Circuit held that the third amended complaint raised a dispute as to whether a relevant artisan would understand "group of buried asset data points … in light of a recognized meaning of 'group' in mathematics to mean one or more, not two or more."

First, the court noted that the term was not so "plain" that to give it a contrary construction would require redefinition or disclaimer and that while "group" presumptively implies two or more, that presumption can be overcome. Next, the court emphasized that the specification referred in two places to using the claimed method with "one or more" buried asset points, which was dismissed by the district court as being used "only twice."

The court stated, "[I]t is not clear why twice is not enough to support what may be a permissible but, if unusual and non-presumptive, meaning of the expression." The court also identified a third specification passage supporting UTTO's proposed construction.

Finally, the court noted that, on remand, extrinsic evidence may be appropriate to construe the claims, in particular that the invention may work with only one data point as alleged in the third amended complaint. The court therefore vacated and remanded for further claim construction proceedings, noting that it was not deciding if the district court's claim construction was correct.

The decision is significant because it recognized that district courts are authorized to dismiss patent infringement lawsuits under Rule 12(b)(6) without conducting a separate Markman hearing if the claim language is clear and would be dispositive of the issue of infringement.

As shown in UTTO, however, this rule does not apply in cases where the claim language is susceptible to different meanings, in particular where extrinsic evidence, including but not limited to expert testimony, may be relevant to the meaning of a claim term.

In future practice, defendants will likely cite UTTO to argue for early dismissals based on an undisputed case-dispositive meaning of a claim as applied to an accused instrumentality. Plaintiffs will likely make their complaints lengthier to include anticipated claim construction arguments and cite UTTO for the proposition that early dismissal is case-specific and inappropriate where the claim language is susceptible to different meanings, where extrinsic evidence is relevant, and/or where the structure or operation of the accused instrumentality is disputed.

What Fed. Circ. Ruling Means For Patent Case Dismissals

Related Professionals