Bendable Tab Doesn’t Pivot, Monitors Don’t Infringe

Posted on | April 30, 2008 | No Comments

2008-1326 Digital Spectrum v. Eastman Kodak
2008-1327 Digital Spectrum v. Target
2008-1328 Digital Spectrum v. Westinghouse
CD/CA SACV 07-00729 (main)

Plaintiff Digital Spectrum appeals from Judge James Selna’s Order granting defendants summary judgment of noninfringement on 6,826,863.  The ‘863 is directed to a combination video monitor and detachable picture frame.

First, the court construed the limitation "a pivotal locking latch mounted for rotation within [the] . . . shell[, within which the display is enclosed.].  Digital Spectrum offered no construction, while defendants’ suggested "a latch mounted at a point within the shell, such that the latch pivots or rotates around the mounting point."  Plaintiff objected based on claim differentiation, arguing that the proposed construction incorporated a "pivot pin."

The court essentially adopted defendants’ construction with a slight change: "a latch mounted at a point within the shell, such that the latch pivots or rotates within the shell around the mounting point."  This construction was deemed consistent with the specification and the ordinary meaning of the terms.

The construction was critical because the accused products used a "slightly bendable tab integral with the outside of the shell," the tab fixed so that it would not pivot or rotate.

The bendable tab was held not to meet the limitation literally or by equivalents.  While plaintiff argued that things may pivot by bending, citing various patents, the court distinguished those items as bending around a crease or fixed line/point, such as an envelope flap or box tab.  The accused tabs flexed rather than pivoted.

As for the Doctrine of Equivalents, the court ruled that plaintiff had not explicitly alleged infringement by equivalents.  Digital Spectrum argued that its allegations and claim charts of literal infringement "inherently included" equivalents, but the court, noting plaintiff’s lack of authority on the point, was unmoved and refused to apply the doctrine.

Documents:

2008-1326_Digital_SJ_Order.pdf

Comments