United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
L. ROBART UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the court on the parties' dispute
regarding one claim term in United States Patent No. 7, 478,
067 ("the '067 Patent"), entitled
"Authentication System for Identification
Documents." (See SAC (Dkt. # 74), Ex. A
("'067 Patent").) The court has reviewed the
parties' claim construction briefs (Intellicheck Op. Br.
(Dkt. # 87); Honeywell Op. Br. (Dkt. # 89); Intellicheck
Resp. (Dkt. # 92); Honeywell Resp. (Dkt. # 90)), all
materials filed in support thereof, the relevant portions of
the record, and the relevant case law. The court also heard
oral argument from the parties at a Markman hearing
on December 15, 2017. (See 12/15/17 Min. Entry (Dkt.
# 97).) Being fully advised, the court declines to construe
the disputed term for the reasons set forth below.
a patent infringement case involving systems and methods for
verifying the authenticity of identification documents, such
as driver licenses (the "Invention"). Plaintiff
Intellicheck Mobilisa, Inc. ("Intellicheck") owns
five patents covering the Invention; only one, the '067
Patent, is at issue here. (See SAC ¶ 11;
see also Jt. Statement (Dkt. #85).) Intellicheck
asserts that Defendant Honeywell International Inc.
("Honeywell") has directly infringed upon and
induced infringement of its patents-in-suit, including the
'067 Patent. (SAC ¶¶ 13-14, 34-57.)
court has previously construed the '067 Patent, along
with the four other patents at issue, in another patent
infringement case brought by Intellicheck with the same
counsel representing both parties in the two suits. (See
generally Dkt.); see also Intellicheck
Mobilisa, Inc. v. Wizz Sys., LLC, No. C15-0366JLR (Dkt.
# 68) (''Wizz Cl. Constr. Order").
Because of this previous claim construction order,
Intellicheck and Honeywell were able to largely agree on many
of the disputed terms. However, one term in the '067
Patent remains in dispute:
1. first circuitry at said first location for receiving the
information read from the driver license and determining
whether the read information read [sic]comports with said
('067 Patent at 15:1-4.) The court now discusses claim
construction law and its application to this disputed term.
Law of Claim Construction
court has the sole responsibility for construing patent
claims. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517
U.S. 370, 372 (1996). In practice, executing the
Markman mandate means following rules that rank
various sources of evidence illustrating the "true"
meaning of claim terms.
evidence, which includes the patent and its prosecution
history, is the primary source from which to derive a
claim's meaning. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The court's task
is to determine the "ordinary and customary
meaning" of the claim terms in the eyes of a person of
ordinary skill in the art on the filing date of the patent.
Id. at 1313 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v.
Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir.
1996)). In its review of intrinsic evidence, the court should
begin with the language of both the asserted claim and other
claims in the patent. Id. at 1314; see also
Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
("[C]laim construction analysis must begin and remain
centered on the claim language itself.").
court must read claim language, however, in light of the
remainder of the patent's specification.
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 ("[T]he
specification necessarily informs the proper construction of
the claims."). The specification acts as a
"concordance" for claim terms, and is thus the best
source beyond the claim language for understanding those
terms. Id. at 1315. But the court should not commit
the "cardinal sin" of claim
construction-impermissibly reading limitations from the
specification into the claims. Id. at 1320 (citing
SciMed Life Sys. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys.,
Inc.,242 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
Additionally, although the patent's prosecution history
is also intrinsic evidence, it is generally "less useful
for claim construction purposes" than the specification.
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. ...