Case Law Transamerica Life Ins. v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins.

Transamerica Life Ins. v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins.

Document Cited Authorities (33) Cited in (15) Related

Glenn L. Johnson, Kevin H. Collins, Sarah J. Gayer, Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiffs.

Carrie Marie Raver, Dale Randall Brown, Gary C. Frust, Barnes and Thomburg LLP, Fort Wayne, IN, Denny M. Dennis, Todd A. Strother, Bradshaw Fowler Proctor Fairgrave, Des Moines, IA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED PATENT CLAIM TERMS

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.  INTRODUCTION .................................................................871
      A.  Procedural Background ....................................................871
      B.  Factual Background .......................................................873
          1.  The parties ..........................................................873
          2.  The patent-in-suit ...................................................873
              a.  The inventors and dates of filing and issuance ...................873
              b.  The Abstract and Field Of The Invention ..........................873
              c.  The Background Of The Invention ..................................874
              d.  The Brief Summary Of The Invention ...............................875
              e.  The Detailed Description .........................................880
                    i.  The description of a first method ..........................880
                   ii.  The description of a second method .........................884
                  iii.  Is a third method described? ...............................886
              f.  The Flow Charts ..................................................891
              g.  Pertinent claims of the patent ...................................891
      C.  Agreed Constructions .....................................................892
      D.  Disputed Constructions ...................................................893
II.  LEGAL ANALYSIS ...............................................................898
      A.  Principles Of Patent Claim Construction ..................................898
          1.  The Phillips methodology .............................................898
              a.  The starting point ...............................................898
              b.  Hierarchy of evidence ............................................898
          2.  Other canons of claim construction ...................................901
          3.  The court's independent obligation to construe terms .................902
          4. The court's supposed duty to determine overall scope of exclusive
               claim coverage ......................................................903
      B.  Agreed Constructions Of Terms Of The '201 Patent .........................905
      C.  Disputed Constructions Of Terms Of The '201 Patent .......................905
          1.  Claim 35: Preamble ...................................................905
              a.  "Annuity" ........................................................905
              b.  "Variable annuity" ...............................................906
                    i.  Proffered constructions ....................................906
                   ii.  Initial arguments of the parties ...........................907
                  iii.  Tentative analysis .........................................907
                   iv.  Oral and post-hearing arguments ............................909
                    v.  Post-hearing analysis ......................................910
              c.  "Systematic withdrawal program" ..................................912
                    i.  Proffered constructions ....................................912
                   ii.  Initial arguments of the parties ...........................912
                  iii.  Tentative analysis .........................................913
                   iv.  Post-hearing arguments .....................................916
                    v.  Post-hearing analysis ......................................917
              d.  "Guaranteed minimum payment feature associated with a
                    systematic withdrawal program" .................................918
                    i.  Proffered constructions ....................................918
                   ii.  Initial arguments of the parties ...........................919
                  iii.  Tentative analysis .........................................920
                   iv.  Oral and post-hearing arguments ............................922
                    v.  Post-hearing analysis ......................................923
              e.  "Scheduled payment" ..............................................925
                    i.  Proffered constructions ....................................925
                   ii.  Initial arguments of the parties ...........................925
                  iii.  Tentative analysis .........................................925
                   iv.  Oral and post-hearing arguments ............................927
                    v.  Post-hearing analysis ......................................929
              f.  "Periodically determining an amount [of a scheduled
                    payment]" ......................................................929
                    i.  Proffered constructions ....................................929
                   ii.  Initial arguments of the parties ...........................930
                  iii.  Tentative analysis .........................................931
                   iv.  Oral and post-hearing arguments ............................933
                    v.  Post-hearing analysis ......................................934
          2.  Claim 35: Step a .....................................................935
              a.  "Account value" ..................................................935
                    i.  Proffered constructions ....................................935
                   ii.  Initial arguments of the parties ...........................935
                  iii.  Tentative analysis .........................................936
                   iv.  Oral and post-hearing arguments ............................936
                    v.  Post-hearing analysis ......................................937
              b.  "Withdrawal rate" ................................................938
                    i.  Proffered constructions ....................................938
                   ii.  Initial arguments of the parties ...........................938
                  iii.  Tentative analysis .........................................939
                   iv.  Oral and post-hearing arguments ............................940
                    v.  Post-hearing analysis ......................................941
c.  "Payout term" ....................................................942
                    i.  Proffered constructions ....................................942
                   ii.  Initial arguments of the parties ...........................942
                  iii.  Tentative analysis .........................................943
                   iv.  Oral arguments .............................................944
                    v.  Post-hearing analysis ......................................944
              d.  "Benefit payments" ...............................................945
                    i.  Proffered constructions ....................................945
                   ii.  Arguments of the parties ...................................945
                  iii.  Analysis ...................................................945
              e.  "Period of benefit payments" .....................................946
                    i.  Proffered constructions ....................................946
                   ii.  Arguments of the parties ...................................947
                  iii.  Analysis ...................................................947
          3.  Claim 35: Step b: "Determining an initial scheduled
                payment" ...........................................................949
              a.  The proffered constructions ......................................949
              b.  Initial arguments of the parties .................................950
              c.  Tentative analysis ...............................................950
              d.  Oral and post-hearing arguments ..................................951
              e.  Post-hearing analysis ............................................951
          4.  Claim 35: Step c .....................................................952
              a.  "Periodically determining account value" .........................952
                    i.  Proffered constructions ....................................952
                   ii.  Initial arguments of the parties ...........................952
                  iii.  Tentative analysis .........................................953
                   iv.  Oral arguments ......................:......................954
                    v.  Post-hearing analysis ......................................954
              b.  "Making the scheduled payment [by withdrawing that
                    amount from the account value]" ................................955
                    i.  Proffered
...
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2009
Ca Inc. v. Simple.Com Inc.
"...a correction was obvious based on relevant claim language and the “Summary of the Invention”); TransAmerica Life Ins. Co. v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 550 F.Supp.2d 865, 976 (N.D.Iowa 2008) (correcting the “erroneous insertion of the plus sign” in the relevant claim language where the ty..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2008
Transamerica Life Ins. v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins.
"...INTRODUCTION A. Procedural Background In its lengthy Markman ruling on claim construction, Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 550 F.Supp.2d 865 (N.D.Iowa 2008), the court set out in some detail the procedural and factual background to the present litigation. The cour..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2010
TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. v. LINCOLN NAT. LIFE INS.
"...the parties' agreed constructions of certain terms and construed the disputed claim terms. See Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 550 F.Supp.2d 865 (N.D.Iowa 2008). As to the language of Claim 35 at issue here, the parties agreed that "comprising the steps of" is ope..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2009
Transamerica Life Ins. v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins.
"...Regarding Construction Of Disputed Patent Claim Terms (docket no. 64) (the Markman Order). See Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 550 F.Supp.2d 865 (N.D.Iowa 2008). Although the court summarized its constructions of disputed patent claim terms (juxtaposed with the cl..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska – 2013
Ventures v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc.
"...Court does not intend to define the limits or scope of the '592 Patent. See TransAmerica Life Ins. Co. v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co., 550 F.Supp.2d 865, 904 (N.D.Iowa 2008) (stating that “the court is not required to determine the ‘overall scope’ of the patent as a first step in claim term ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2009
Ca Inc. v. Simple.Com Inc.
"...a correction was obvious based on relevant claim language and the “Summary of the Invention”); TransAmerica Life Ins. Co. v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 550 F.Supp.2d 865, 976 (N.D.Iowa 2008) (correcting the “erroneous insertion of the plus sign” in the relevant claim language where the ty..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2008
Transamerica Life Ins. v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins.
"...INTRODUCTION A. Procedural Background In its lengthy Markman ruling on claim construction, Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 550 F.Supp.2d 865 (N.D.Iowa 2008), the court set out in some detail the procedural and factual background to the present litigation. The cour..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2010
TRANSAMERICA LIFE INS. v. LINCOLN NAT. LIFE INS.
"...the parties' agreed constructions of certain terms and construed the disputed claim terms. See Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 550 F.Supp.2d 865 (N.D.Iowa 2008). As to the language of Claim 35 at issue here, the parties agreed that "comprising the steps of" is ope..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa – 2009
Transamerica Life Ins. v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins.
"...Regarding Construction Of Disputed Patent Claim Terms (docket no. 64) (the Markman Order). See Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 550 F.Supp.2d 865 (N.D.Iowa 2008). Although the court summarized its constructions of disputed patent claim terms (juxtaposed with the cl..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska – 2013
Ventures v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc.
"...Court does not intend to define the limits or scope of the '592 Patent. See TransAmerica Life Ins. Co. v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co., 550 F.Supp.2d 865, 904 (N.D.Iowa 2008) (stating that “the court is not required to determine the ‘overall scope’ of the patent as a first step in claim term ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex