Claim Construction
In Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2002), the Federal Circuit remanded for a new trial the District Court's decision for the patent-holder (2000 WL 1801849). The case arose from TDS' 1997 patents for controlling LED pixel colors. TDS filed suit, alleging that Telegenix' Colorgraphix devices infringed its patents. A jury found for TDS, and the district court entered judgment of literal infringement on several of the claims, found willful infringement, awarded damages and interest of more than $9 million, and enjoined Telegenix from producing its Colorgraphix displays.
The Federal Circuit first found that "[d]ictionaries, encyclopedias and treatises ... may be the most meaningful sources of information" in helping judges understand technology. The court found that such works are not "extrinsic evidence," but where there are multiple dictionary definitions, the intrinsic record must also always be consulted to identify which of the dictionary definitions is most consistent with the inventor's use of the words. If more than one dictionary definition is consistent, the claim terms may be construed to encompass all such consistent meanings. The intrinsic record must also be examined to determine whether the presumption of ordinary and customary meaning is rebutted. "The presumption in favor of a dictionary definition will be overcome where the patentee, acting as his or her own lexicographer, has clearly set forth and explicit definition of the term different from its ordinary meaning." "Consulting prosecution history before dictionary definitions may import unnecessary limitations into the claims.
The Federal Circuit applied dictionary definitions to several terms, narrowing the district court's reading of the claims involving "activation," "controlling the duration," and the distinctions between the background area and the display area. The Federal Circuit also found error in the district court's means-plus-function claim analyses. substantially narrowed the claims. Having found substantial prejudicial error in the trial court's jury instructions, the court remanded for a new trial on both liability and damages. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's various admissions and exclusions of expert testimony. The court found that the district court had correctly applied the rule in Wine Railway Appliance Co. v. Enterprise Railway Equipment Co., 297 U.S. 387 (1936), in sustaining the jury's award of damages for acts of infringement prior to notice of infringement.