Ideal Instruments v. Rivard Instruments, C 05-3079-MWB.

498 F.Supp.2d 1131

IDEAL INSTRUMENTS, INC., a Michigan corporation, Plaintiff, v. RIVARD INSTRUMENTS, INC., a foreign corporation, and Meril Rivard, a foreign national, Defendants.

No. C 05-3079-MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division.

August 10, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Jay Eaton, Nyemaster Goode Voigts West Hansell & O'Brien, PC, Des Moines, IA, Katherine A. Weed, Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap, P.C., Detroit, MI, Mark R. Fox, Toni L. Harris, Fraser, Trebilcock, Davis & Dunlap, P.C., Lansing, MI, for Plaintiff.

Amy M. Bjork, Angela Ellen Dralle, Dennis Wayne Johnson, Dorsey & Whitney, G. Brian Pingel, Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross, Baskerville and Schoenebaum, Des Moines, IA, Catherine S. Collins, Deidre D. Link, Karl T. Ondersma, Terence J. Linn, Van Dyke, Gardner, Linn & Burkhart, LLP, Grand Rapids, MI, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED PATENT CLAIM TERMS

BENNETT, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.  INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................1136
A.  Procedural History...............................................................................1136
B.  Factual Background...............................................................................1137
1.  The parties..................................................................................1137
2.  The patents..................................................................................1137
3.  Common portions of the patents...............................................................1138
4.  Pertinent claims of the '668 patent..........................................................1143
5.  Pertinent claims of the '196 patent..........................................................1144
C.  Agreed Constructions.............................................................................1146
D.  Constructions In Dispute.........................................................................1146
II.  LEGAL ANALYSIS.......................................................................................1150
A.  Principles Of Patent Claim Construction..........................................................1150
1.  The Phillips methodology.....................................................................1150
a.  The starting point.......................................................................1150
b.  Hierarchy of evidence....................................................................1150
2.  Other canons of claim construction...........................................................1154
3.  The court's independent obligation to construe terms.........................................1155
B.  Terms Of The '668 Patent.........................................................................1155
1.  "Stainless steel"............................................................................1155
a.  Arguments of the parties.................................................................1156
b.  Analysis.................................................................................1157
2.  "Stainless steel" comprising certain elements................................................1158
a.  Arguments of the parties.................................................................1158
b.  Analysis.................................................................................1159
i.  Characterization of the material...................................................1159
ii.  Identification of elements.........................................................1160
iii.  Chromium content and other alleged ambiguities.....................................1160
iv.  Weight percentage ranges...........................................................1162
v.  The court's construction...........................................................1163
3.  "Rendered magnetic" or "is magnetized".......................................................1164
a.  Arguments of the parties.................................................................1165
b.  Analysis.................................................................................1167
i.  Difference in words or difference in meaning?......................................1167
ii.  Permanent and residual magnetism...................................................1168
iii.  Capacity to be magnetized..........................................................1168
iv.  Time at which the needle is rendered magnetic......................................1171
v.  Magnetized to a level that enables detection.......................................1174
vi.  The court's construction...........................................................1175
4.  "The wall has a thickness of greater than 0.018 inch"........................................1175

a.  Arguments of the parties.................................................................1176
b.  Analysis.................................................................................1176
i.  Relationship to independent claims.................................................1176
ii.  Other intrinsic evidence...........................................................1177
iii.  The court's construction...........................................................1179
5.  "The needle has an inside diameter of about 0.046 inch and an
                outside diameter of 0.018 inch"..................................................................1179
a.  Arguments of the parties.................................................................1179
b.  Analysis.................................................................................1180
i.  Source of the error in the impossible claim........................................1180
ii.  Construction of the approximation..................................................1181
iii.  Inside diameter....................................................................1183
iv.  The court's construction...........................................................1183
C.  Terms Of The '196 Patent.........................................................................1183
1.  Agreed constructions.........................................................................1183
2.  Disputed constructions.......................................................................1184
a.  "Gauge"..................................................................................1184
i.  Arguments of the parties...........................................................1184
ii.  Analysis...........................................................................1185
iii.  The court's construction...........................................................1187
b.  "Stainless steel"........................................................................1187
i.  Analysis............................................................................1188
ii.  The court's construction...........................................................1195
c.  "Magnetic or magnetizable"...............................................................1195
i.  Arguments of the parties...........................................................1195
ii.  Analysis...........................................................................1195
iii.  The court's construction...........................................................1198
d.  Comparison to dimensions of "the standard needle cannula"................................1198
i.  Arguments of the parties...........................................................1199
ii.  Analysis...........................................................................1200
iii.  The court's construction...........................................................1206
e.  Terms in "whereby," "so that," or "such that" clauses....................................1206
i.  Arguments of the parties...........................................................1207
ii.  Analysis...........................................................................1208
iii.  The court's conclusion.............................................................1213
f.  "The sidewalls flanking the lumen has [sic] a combined
                   thickness of about 0.025 inch"................................................................1213
i.  Arguments of the parties............................................................1213
ii.  Analysis............................................................................1214
iii.  The court's construction............................................................1215
g.  "Stainless steel comprising" certain elements............................................1215
h.  "The needle cannula or piece thereof is magnetized.......................................1215
III.  CONCLUSION...........................................................................................1216

Although this patent infringement action has been before the court for the disposition of several weighty matters,¹ this ruling is the first in which the focus is the patents-in-suit themselves, which are for "detectable" hypodermic needles for livestock. Specifically, this matter comes before the court for construction of disputed patent claim terms, i.e., for a ruling after a so-called "Markman hearing." See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en Banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996). The parties' positions on claim construction appear to be as irreconcilable as their positions have been on nearly every substantive issue so far in this case: The parties have agreed on the construction of only two claim terms, but dispute whether another sixteen claim terms in the two patents require any construction at all, and if so, what construction to give them.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Procedural History

Pursuant to a...