[00:00:01] Speaker 02: Our next case is ICRIS Technologies versus Point Blank Enterprises, 2023-2062. [00:00:45] Speaker 02: We're ready when you are, Mr. Ryerson. [00:01:18] Speaker 00: Morning. [00:01:19] Speaker 03: May I place the court, James Ryerson, joined by my colleague Douglas Wider on behalf of Icarus Technologies. [00:01:26] Speaker 03: The Icarus patents that issue in this appeal are directed to a potentially life-saving quick-release system for ballistic garments worn by soldiers and other first responders. [00:01:36] Speaker 03: The claimed ballistic garments include a pull cord, operationally coupled to one or more releasable fasteners, such that when the pull cord is pulled, releasable fasteners release. [00:01:48] Speaker 03: The front and rear portions of the garment come apart. [00:01:51] Speaker 00: I'm very familiar with the technology and the records. [00:01:54] Speaker 00: You might want to jump right into your issues. [00:01:56] Speaker 03: Absolutely, Your Honor. [00:01:59] Speaker 03: The error in the district court's claim construction below stemmed directly from its inclusion of the word directly and its elaboration in its summary judgment decision on appeal or in its summary judgment decision that a user must directly pull on the wires or cables as opposed to some type of handle or structure on the end of the pull cord. [00:02:20] Speaker 03: That finding, in turn, stemmed from the district court's ruling at claim construction, which it reiterated on summary judgment. [00:02:29] Speaker 03: that in the background section of the Icarus patents, the inventors disclaimed pulp boards having handles on the end. [00:02:35] Speaker 03: But that was a misunderstanding of the background section of the Icarus patents. [00:02:40] Speaker 03: In the background of the Icarus patents, they talk about prior art cutaway vests, which are held together [00:02:46] Speaker 03: by cables routed through a series of loops and eyelets. [00:02:51] Speaker 03: But to oversimplify things, think of your shoelaces and your shoes. [00:02:55] Speaker 03: You have to lace the shoes through the eyelets in your shoes to hold the shoe together. [00:03:00] Speaker 03: The background of the Icarus patents said that that structure was time consuming and tedious. [00:03:07] Speaker 03: That lacing process was time consuming and tedious. [00:03:10] Speaker 03: But that problem and that criticism of the prior art had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there was a handle on the end of those cables. [00:03:18] Speaker 03: Baker's patents were in no way criticizing handles. [00:03:22] Speaker 03: I mean, it's just common sense that in an emergency situation, these are ballistic garments worn by soldiers. [00:03:28] Speaker 03: You don't want them flailing for some thin wire. [00:03:31] Speaker 03: You're going to want some type of pull cord, some type of structure on the end of the cord. [00:03:35] Speaker 03: And it could take many forms that they'd be able to pull in that type of situation. [00:03:40] Speaker 05: Did claim 1 recite that at least one pull cord operationally actuates at least one releasable fastener? [00:03:50] Speaker 05: Is there anything in the claim that talks about what actuates the pull cord? [00:03:59] Speaker 05: It talks about the pull cord actuating the release. [00:04:03] Speaker 05: But I didn't see anything in the claim that talked about [00:04:07] Speaker 05: what it was that actuated the pull cord, whether it's a handle or a lever or a direct engagement or otherwise. [00:04:18] Speaker 03: I agree, Your Honor. [00:04:19] Speaker 03: The claim is not limiting in terms of the structure of the pull cord. [00:04:23] Speaker 03: The claim defines the pull cord in terms of operationally how it's configured. [00:04:27] Speaker 03: it's operationally coupled to the releasable fasteners. [00:04:30] Speaker 03: But neither the claim nor the specification of the patent limit the structure of the term pull cord beyond the full scope of structures that a person of ordinary skill in the yard would understand that a pull cord may take. [00:04:42] Speaker 01: That seems to be the big issue in this case to me. [00:04:45] Speaker 01: What is the ordinary meaning of pull cord? [00:04:48] Speaker 01: Is it a cord you pull? [00:04:50] Speaker 01: Is it any cord that could be pulled in any way, whether it's by a user or by something else? [00:04:57] Speaker 01: And I thought the district court made a big emphasis on the fact that there's a pull cord 16 in the figure that's actually called a pull cord. [00:05:06] Speaker 01: And then there's something that's a cord that's in turn pulled when the pull cord is pulled by a user. [00:05:13] Speaker 01: And it's not called a pull cord. [00:05:15] Speaker 01: It's just called a cord. [00:05:17] Speaker 01: And so the district court seemed to be suggesting that [00:05:20] Speaker 01: Given the inventor's use of the word pull cord to mean something where that's a thing that's actually being pulled directly, that's how he came up with this interpretation of directly. [00:05:32] Speaker 01: What is your response to that? [00:05:35] Speaker 03: Good question, Your Honor. [00:05:37] Speaker 03: Icarus is disputing that the pull cord itself must be accessible. [00:05:41] Speaker 03: It's not something that's internal within the vest. [00:05:44] Speaker 01: Forget about the internal external. [00:05:46] Speaker 01: I'm with you on that. [00:05:48] Speaker 01: I don't think that internal external has bearing on the directly indirectly question. [00:05:54] Speaker 01: because, you know, part of the cord, maybe the little ball at the end, could be outside the vest and somebody could pull it, right? [00:06:01] Speaker 01: The question is whether the thing, the entity that's called a pull cord, has to be pulled directly or whether it could be pulled by a lever or pulled by a slide or pulled by something else. [00:06:15] Speaker 03: Well, it's our position that in the accused products, the lever is part of the pull cord. [00:06:20] Speaker 01: But let's talk about the ordinary. [00:06:23] Speaker 01: So specifically, the district court's looking at the specification and saying, when I look at what they're identifying as a pull cord, it is element 16, which is the thing that's pulled by the user. [00:06:36] Speaker 01: Then there's something called cord. [00:06:39] Speaker 01: It doesn't have the adjective pull in front of it. [00:06:42] Speaker 01: And it's only pulled in directly. [00:06:45] Speaker 01: So the district court says, as a result of that, I think this inventor meant pull court to be something that you actually pull. [00:06:52] Speaker 01: I have a second question for you, actually, which is, is there any evidence whatsoever in this record on what a pull court is? [00:07:00] Speaker 01: Did anyone put it in a dictionary, technical information? [00:07:03] Speaker 01: There's nothing in our appendix. [00:07:05] Speaker 03: OK. [00:07:06] Speaker 03: I direct, Your Honor, to two different things. [00:07:08] Speaker 03: First. [00:07:09] Speaker 03: The specification, in every single embodiment, structurally, a pull cord has a round pull or handle on the end. [00:07:16] Speaker 03: That was figure 16. [00:07:18] Speaker 03: Unlike a cord, the pull cord is not just cordage. [00:07:22] Speaker 03: It has some type of structure on the end. [00:07:24] Speaker 03: That's figures 1A, 1B, 4, and 5 of the patent. [00:07:27] Speaker 03: So in every embodiment, there is a structure on the end of a pull cord. [00:07:31] Speaker 01: It's not limited to just cordage. [00:07:32] Speaker 01: So you think that any cord that has a structure at the end of it is a pull cord? [00:07:38] Speaker 03: A person of ordinary skill in the art would have to understand it as a poll court. [00:07:42] Speaker 01: I'm confused as to what the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art would be for a poll court. [00:07:48] Speaker 03: We have evidence in the record that enlightens that construction. [00:07:51] Speaker 03: There were four prior art patents discussed in the background of the Icarus patent. [00:07:56] Speaker 03: And each of those four prior art patents are part of the intrinsic record this court has held [00:08:01] Speaker 03: that they may be a valuable guide in construing a claim term, because they can shed light on the meaning of a claim term to persons of ordinary skill in the art. [00:08:09] Speaker 03: In all four of those patents, the term pull cord is used to refer to a handle on the end of four cables that users pull to activate the vest. [00:08:19] Speaker 03: And I can direct, Your Honor, that's Appendix 6941 is one of those four prior art patents. [00:08:28] Speaker 03: They all say the same thing. [00:08:30] Speaker 03: But at 6941, that's one of those prior patents. [00:08:34] Speaker 03: That's part of the intrinsic record. [00:08:36] Speaker 03: It says. [00:08:36] Speaker 01: Yeah. [00:08:37] Speaker 01: Woodward column and line number. [00:08:38] Speaker 03: OK. [00:08:46] Speaker 03: Column four, Your Honor. [00:08:48] Speaker 01: What page are we on? [00:08:51] Speaker 01: Line 19. [00:08:51] Speaker 03: Appendix 6941, column four, line 19. [00:08:56] Speaker 01: Well, that just says the pull cord has a handle, right? [00:08:59] Speaker 03: As shown in figure four, pull cord 80 includes a handle attached to four cables, 82, 84, 86, and 88. [00:09:05] Speaker 03: How does that address the question? [00:09:10] Speaker 01: Let me put it this way. [00:09:11] Speaker 01: I can only think for me, but I agree with you, pull cords can have handles. [00:09:16] Speaker 01: And there was no disclaimer of that. [00:09:18] Speaker 01: So could you focus on the directly and directly in responding to my question about what a pull cord is? [00:09:26] Speaker 03: It, of course, isn't disputing that the pull cord has to be directly pulled, but it's not the wire or the cable of the pull cord that must be directly pulled. [00:09:35] Speaker 03: It could be any portion of the pull cord that's directly pulled, which includes the structure on the end. [00:09:40] Speaker 03: It could be a handle. [00:09:41] Speaker 03: It could be a loop. [00:09:43] Speaker 03: It could be a lever. [00:09:45] Speaker 03: Whatever a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be a pull cord, [00:09:49] Speaker 03: Any portion of that can be directly pulled. [00:09:52] Speaker 03: Where the district court erred was saying that you have to directly pull on wires or cables as opposed to a handle attached to those cables. [00:10:05] Speaker 01: The hard part is that, yeah, if it's just a handle that the person pulls and then the cord goes with it, this seems like an integral unit. [00:10:13] Speaker 01: But if it's a lever, and you pull a lever that in turn moves a cord, is that a pull cord? [00:10:19] Speaker 01: Or is that a lever that in turn pulls a cord? [00:10:24] Speaker 03: Well, the evidence below, and this is from Icarus' expert, Dr. Jeanette, he testified that that was a pull cord. [00:10:33] Speaker 03: This is that in opposition to, [00:10:36] Speaker 03: Defendant's summary judgment motion. [00:10:38] Speaker 03: This is appendix 5186, paragraph 22. [00:10:42] Speaker 01: Does that then become a factual? [00:10:48] Speaker 01: You would say that's a factual dispute. [00:10:50] Speaker 03: Yes. [00:10:51] Speaker 03: Dr. Jeanette says the lever acts as a handle at the end of the pull cord. [00:10:55] Speaker 03: And he applied that the accused products had a pull cord under that definition. [00:11:03] Speaker 03: Frankly. [00:11:06] Speaker 03: Defendants haven't argued in this appeal that under ICRIS's proposed construction, their accused products lack a pull court. [00:11:13] Speaker 03: And the district court made a number of findings that were consistent with the fact that if pull court is construed as ICRIS is advocating in this appeal, the accused products, in fact, have a pull court. [00:11:25] Speaker 03: This was the district court describing in the summary judgment decision how the accused products work. [00:11:30] Speaker 03: The district court said that in the accused products, [00:11:34] Speaker 03: user pulls a handle that indirectly pulls the cables. [00:11:38] Speaker 03: But a handle that fix the cables is a pull cord. [00:11:41] Speaker 03: And we've illustrated the pull cord in the accused products. [00:11:46] Speaker 03: It's at page 12 of the blue brief. [00:11:48] Speaker 03: You can see the accused products pull cord. [00:11:53] Speaker 03: On page 12, we have a picture of the accused vest on the left and the pull cord on the right. [00:12:01] Speaker 03: The pull cord is in the center of the vest that has a handle attached to four wires. [00:12:05] Speaker 03: And when you pull that pull cord, it pulls on the wires. [00:12:09] Speaker 03: I mean, it's the same as a pull cord in other contexts. [00:12:12] Speaker 03: Think of starting a lawn mower. [00:12:14] Speaker 03: There's a handle on the end of a rope that you pull. [00:12:19] Speaker 03: On a light switch, there's a tab on the end of a chain that you grab to help pull the string. [00:12:28] Speaker 03: This is no different. [00:12:29] Speaker 03: When you pull that handle on the accused product, it pulls the cables. [00:12:33] Speaker 03: And Dr. Jeanette opined that that was a pull cord. [00:12:36] Speaker 01: Can I ask you a question about doctrine of equivalence? [00:12:40] Speaker 01: So the district court entered summary judgment of no infringement under the doctrine of equivalence for two reasons. [00:12:47] Speaker 01: One was about ensnaring the prior art based on handles. [00:12:51] Speaker 01: And I think you've got a argument with respect to that that you've made in your briefs. [00:12:56] Speaker 01: But the other one, [00:12:57] Speaker 01: for the quad only was the district court held that there was no dispute of material fact that there is a difference in the way the quad operates compared to the claims, because the quad's trigger will reduce the mechanical force necessary to disengage the connectors to detach the vest. [00:13:14] Speaker 01: That that's a different way, as a matter no reasonable juror could find otherwise, basically, in granting summary judgment. [00:13:22] Speaker 01: But I don't see you challenge that anywhere in your blue brief [00:13:27] Speaker 01: or in your gray brief? [00:13:29] Speaker 01: Could you show me where that's challenged? [00:13:31] Speaker 03: Your Honor, we didn't challenge that exact point in the blue brief or the gray brief. [00:13:36] Speaker 03: The only thing I will say, and I notice I'm into my rebuttal time, is that Dr. Jeanette didn't have the opportunity to put in a doctrine of equivalence argument under the correct construction. [00:13:46] Speaker 03: Dr. Jeanette was bound by the court's claim construction. [00:13:49] Speaker 03: And so in his declaration in opposition to the summary judgment, he adhered to that construction. [00:13:55] Speaker 01: Could you explain why the claim construction matters for that finding on different way? [00:14:01] Speaker 01: I mean, it has nothing to do with the claim construction. [00:14:04] Speaker 01: It's assuming that there is a difference. [00:14:08] Speaker 01: It's not literal infringement. [00:14:10] Speaker 01: It's doctrine of equivalence infringement, assuming that district court's claim construction is correct. [00:14:15] Speaker 03: We're not arguing the different way in our opening or our reply group. [00:14:19] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:14:22] Speaker 02: Council will save your rebuttal time. [00:14:25] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:14:29] Speaker 04: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:14:39] Speaker 04: May it please the court? [00:14:41] Speaker 04: The district court's construction below was amply supported by the intrinsic record. [00:14:46] Speaker 04: And respectfully, this court should affirm. [00:14:48] Speaker 04: First, the court was correct in concluding that a court [00:14:54] Speaker 04: within the term pull cord must be a cord, not simply any component, which is what the plaintiff argued below. [00:15:03] Speaker 04: There is nothing in the claim language. [00:15:05] Speaker 01: What about that? [00:15:05] Speaker 01: That's an easy one. [00:15:07] Speaker 01: What about the disclaimer of handles? [00:15:10] Speaker 04: There is nothing in the patent's claim language, specification, or background section that supports the construction of a cord, including a handle. [00:15:17] Speaker 01: What about the fact that the figures all show a ball that could be a handle? [00:15:22] Speaker 04: We don't know what it is, Your Honor. [00:15:23] Speaker 04: It's not described. [00:15:24] Speaker 04: It's not labeled. [00:15:26] Speaker 04: It could be a knot on the end of the cord. [00:15:28] Speaker 04: But for sure, it is a long, slender, flexible material. [00:15:32] Speaker 01: Do you agree or do you dispute that pole cords often have handles? [00:15:36] Speaker 04: In the prior art, pole cords often had handles. [00:15:39] Speaker 04: And in the background section of the patent in dispute, that's noted and rejected. [00:15:47] Speaker 01: So your argument depends on us reading the background of the invention section and saying that handles are criticized and disclaimed, right? [00:15:56] Speaker 04: It does not depend on that. [00:15:57] Speaker 01: That is one argument. [00:15:58] Speaker 01: Let's say that we don't agree with you on that. [00:16:00] Speaker 04: Okay. [00:16:00] Speaker 01: Then what is your next argument? [00:16:03] Speaker 04: With respect to the handling, Your Honor, there is simply no disclosure of a handle or use of a handle. [00:16:07] Speaker 01: But if you agree that a pull cord could have a handle, then why should we limit the claims to not have one? [00:16:13] Speaker 04: Because within the specification, there is no handle. [00:16:17] Speaker 04: It is clearly a long, slender, flexible material. [00:16:20] Speaker 04: There might be a tassel on the end of it. [00:16:22] Speaker 04: It's not described. [00:16:23] Speaker 04: It's not labeled. [00:16:24] Speaker 04: We don't know what it is. [00:16:25] Speaker 04: There's nothing in the record as to what that is. [00:16:27] Speaker 04: And below, to be clear. [00:16:28] Speaker 01: Do you have any cases where we have said, [00:16:33] Speaker 01: Because even though a term, an ordinary skilled artisan understanding a term, would understand that includes a certain element, the fact that the specification embodiments, the preferred embodiments, might or might not show that element shows that we should limit the claim to not have the element. [00:16:51] Speaker 01: I mean, the only situation I know of for such a reading would be lexicography or an expressed disclaimer. [00:16:59] Speaker 04: Well, here, I think if we read the patent as a whole, [00:17:02] Speaker 04: including the background section, setting aside a disavowal argument, there is no language in the specification or the claims that supports pull cord with a handle. [00:17:13] Speaker 04: The patent team, the drafters of the patent, were fully aware of what they now claim, that a skilled artisan would know that a pull cord can include a handle. [00:17:22] Speaker 04: Despite that, they go on and on in the background section about the prior art included, and then they tell us that this new invention includes a pull cord with fewer components. [00:17:32] Speaker 04: And then go on to give us figures. [00:17:34] Speaker 04: And in every single figure, we have a cord, a long, slender, flexible device, as the lower cord held, that is always accessible to the user and always on the ballistic garment, not inside the ballistic garment. [00:17:49] Speaker 05: Where in claim one does it specify that the pool court must be directly engaged by a user? [00:17:57] Speaker 05: So the word directly does not appear in the patent. [00:17:59] Speaker 05: And what's the basis for adding that limitation to the construction? [00:18:04] Speaker 04: I think the basis, Your Honor, is when you read the specification of the patent as a whole, the claims with the specification. [00:18:09] Speaker 04: The pool court is universally described, not just in one embodiment, universally described and depicted [00:18:15] Speaker 04: as accessible to the user. [00:18:17] Speaker 04: This invention only works if one can pull the pull cord. [00:18:21] Speaker 04: There is no explanation of that. [00:18:23] Speaker 05: You could pull a pull cord indirectly as well as directly. [00:18:28] Speaker 04: But in the patent itself, there is no description or explanation of an indirect pull. [00:18:33] Speaker 05: But the specification is broad enough to read on that. [00:18:39] Speaker 05: It's not limited to. [00:18:43] Speaker 05: I mean, I don't read the specification as being limited to the specific embodiments disclosed. [00:18:53] Speaker 04: Understood, Your Honor, but there are no embodiments disclosed, no description of how one would pull a pull cord without actually grasping it and pulling it. [00:19:02] Speaker 04: None at all. [00:19:04] Speaker 05: anywhere in the claims or the specification. [00:19:06] Speaker 05: But it doesn't matter. [00:19:07] Speaker 05: I mean, the discussion in the specification is all about actuating the release. [00:19:14] Speaker 05: Again, as I said at the outset, I don't read the claim as reciting any limitation as to what it is that actuates the poll court. [00:19:25] Speaker 05: The claim says the poll court actuates the release. [00:19:30] Speaker 05: and then leaves open anything else. [00:19:33] Speaker 05: I mean, the claim is just limited to that one, as I read it, to that one aspect of this invention. [00:19:40] Speaker 05: And what it is that triggers or actuates the pull cord is not part of this claim. [00:19:51] Speaker 04: In the specification. [00:19:53] Speaker 04: There are two instances where the location of the pull cord is identified. [00:19:58] Speaker 04: And in both instances, in column two, it's on the protective garment. [00:20:02] Speaker 04: I think why that's significant as to the word directly. [00:20:05] Speaker 05: That's the written description. [00:20:06] Speaker 05: That's the description of the invention and an embodiment of how the invention might function. [00:20:14] Speaker 05: But the claims are directed to a certain aspect of that invention. [00:20:20] Speaker 05: This is as I read this. [00:20:22] Speaker 05: And the claim is not limited to everything described in the written description. [00:20:31] Speaker 05: And I don't see any basis for the district court's addition of the limitation of a direct engagement [00:20:40] Speaker 05: of that poll court. [00:20:42] Speaker 04: I think the district court was reading those claims in connection with the specification and could find no intrinsic evidence to support any type of poll. [00:20:51] Speaker 04: I mean, I agree with you. [00:20:52] Speaker 05: I think the district court was reading the claim in light of the written description and reading the written description into the claim, which is not proper. [00:21:05] Speaker 04: Well, I think I would characterize the court's decision as reading the patent as a whole, consistent with Phillips. [00:21:10] Speaker 04: I don't believe there was an importation. [00:21:12] Speaker 05: There's no lexicography here, right? [00:21:14] Speaker 05: I would agree with that. [00:21:15] Speaker 05: There's no disavowal here. [00:21:18] Speaker 04: I do believe there's a disavowal argument, but I want to emphasize that is not the linchpin of the district court's decision. [00:21:23] Speaker 05: Where's the disavowal argument that you see? [00:21:26] Speaker 04: with respect to the handle, rather, not the direct issue. [00:21:31] Speaker 04: And what is it that's disavowed? [00:21:33] Speaker 04: In the background section of the patent, the patentees disparage prior art of cutaway vests that include loop-through pull cords with handles. [00:21:42] Speaker 04: And after they describe that, they say, we have a new invention that includes. [00:21:46] Speaker 01: But doesn't what they criticize, the fact that it's very difficult to rethread the cord, they don't say it's very difficult to have handles. [00:21:57] Speaker 04: But they do say this, Your Honor. [00:21:59] Speaker 04: On column two, lines five through eight. [00:22:01] Speaker 04: They say, accordingly, a protective outer garment having a quick release system is needed that provides a reduction in operating parts. [00:22:10] Speaker 04: We have a background section that discusses prior art with handles. [00:22:14] Speaker 04: They tell us that they have fewer operating parts. [00:22:16] Speaker 04: And despite knowledge of that prior art, nowhere in the claims or the specification is there any mention of a handle. [00:22:22] Speaker 04: In fact, nowhere in the briefing below. [00:22:24] Speaker 04: was really an argument about the construction to say cord plus handle. [00:22:28] Speaker 04: Down here below was, that had to be a cord. [00:22:30] Speaker 01: I mean, the language reduction in complexity probably has to be read in light of what it is that they're distinguishing. [00:22:39] Speaker 01: And that reduction in complexity might just be referring back to this problem of having to rethread after the vest is removed. [00:22:50] Speaker 04: They specifically refer to it in the pattern reduction of operating parts. [00:22:54] Speaker 04: And that is after they describe prior art, specifically that includes pull cord with handle, an internal cord with a handle. [00:23:04] Speaker 01: How clear does a disclaimer have to be? [00:23:07] Speaker 04: Clear and unequivocal. [00:23:08] Speaker 04: Not explicit, but clear and unequivocal. [00:23:11] Speaker 04: And I do want to emphasize, there's a lot of discussion in the appellant's brief about the disavowal of disclaimer argument. [00:23:18] Speaker 04: Below, the district court spent three or four pages discussing this one term. [00:23:23] Speaker 04: applied Phillips reached a conclusion that this avowal disclaimer issue was not a lynchpin or even a necessary basis for a conclusion. [00:23:31] Speaker 04: She was very clear that she felt this avowal disclaimer provided further evidence to support her construction. [00:23:39] Speaker 04: So it's not the lynchpin. [00:23:41] Speaker 01: Can I ask you another question? [00:23:42] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:23:43] Speaker 01: Is there any evidence on what just the words pull cord means to a person born in a nursing home yard? [00:23:50] Speaker 01: And let me elaborate for a minute. [00:23:52] Speaker 01: Sure. [00:23:53] Speaker 01: I saw the district court looking at what the specification referred to as a pull cord, which I think is element 16. [00:24:01] Speaker 01: And then there was another element called 18 that was just a cord, because it was only pulled indirectly. [00:24:07] Speaker 01: That seemed to be the district court's [00:24:10] Speaker 01: I would say, strongest evidence for the directly, indirectly dichotomy. [00:24:14] Speaker 01: But is there anything else, like a dictionary definition or any books that tell us what a pull cord is? [00:24:23] Speaker 01: If a cord is just something that could be pulled, does that mean every cord is a pull cord? [00:24:30] Speaker 04: There was no evidence in the record other than [00:24:37] Speaker 01: So neither party put in any evidence. [00:24:39] Speaker 04: There was no extrinsic evidence at all and no dictionary definitions. [00:24:42] Speaker 04: With one caveat, in defining the word court as part of poll court, the court did rely on a basic dictionary definition, a long, slender, flexible material. [00:24:53] Speaker 04: But poll court, there was no extrinsic evidence. [00:24:56] Speaker 04: And that important point there is that we have a record here that includes claim construction and summary judgment. [00:25:01] Speaker 04: So there's actual materials in the records from both sides. [00:25:03] Speaker 04: There was no expert evidence submitted on claim construction. [00:25:07] Speaker 04: That was all on infringement. [00:25:10] Speaker 02: Court is almost plain meaning, and pull is a functional term. [00:25:18] Speaker 04: I would agree that the court applied a plain meaning of the word court, opened a dictionary, and said it must be a court. [00:25:23] Speaker 04: And I think the court needed to address that, because below the argument was it need not be a court at all. [00:25:29] Speaker 04: It could be a component. [00:25:30] Speaker 04: That was a construction urge below, both in briefing and in oral argument. [00:25:34] Speaker 04: So the court needed to address whether this is a court in the first instance. [00:25:38] Speaker 04: And then looking at the patent language, the court reached an inclusion on poll court. [00:25:43] Speaker 04: I agree that one of the court's main items of evidence was that every figure in the patent and in the description of the patent, the court is different from the poll court. [00:25:59] Speaker 04: The word cord is used in the patent, and it's not the pull cord. [00:26:03] Speaker 04: It's two different things. [00:26:04] Speaker 04: And in figure 1a, for example, 16 is the pull cord shown on the vest. [00:26:11] Speaker 04: 18 is an internal cord that is moved and coupled to the releaseable fasteners inside the vest. [00:26:18] Speaker 04: I might address one issue on infringement, which Judge Stoll raised and I'd like to address. [00:26:25] Speaker 04: And it's about the operation of the accused devices. [00:26:29] Speaker 04: I want to clarify the record here. [00:26:33] Speaker 04: And the functionality of the accused advice was not disputed below. [00:26:37] Speaker 04: The quad release, there is no pulling of a pull cord in the quad release. [00:26:41] Speaker 04: It is a trigger mechanism with four bounding cables. [00:26:45] Speaker 04: By bounding cable, I mean a wire inside a rubber housing. [00:26:51] Speaker 04: The user rotates a lever on the trigger, so rotates a lever on a fulcrum, no direct pull, which transmits amplified force to the bounding cables, which then leads to the release of the buckles. [00:27:05] Speaker 04: That was undisputed below. [00:27:08] Speaker 04: Our engineer designer put it in a declaration with all the drawings, explained that. [00:27:13] Speaker 04: In opposition, Iqris's expert just said in conclusively fashion, that's the equivalent of a pull cord with a handle. [00:27:19] Speaker 04: District Court appropriately noted that that's not a rebuttal of it. [00:27:24] Speaker 05: Is the bowden cable not a pull cord? [00:27:28] Speaker 04: It is not. [00:27:28] Speaker 04: Why not? [00:27:29] Speaker 04: It is not because, well, first of all, under the Court's construction, it's not directly pulled. [00:27:33] Speaker 04: It can't even be accessed. [00:27:34] Speaker 04: It's inside. [00:27:35] Speaker 05: No, but I'm just asking you the question, apart from the Court's construction, the bowden cable is coupled to the release mechanism. [00:27:46] Speaker 05: The bowden cable. [00:27:49] Speaker 05: And when actuated, causes the release, correct? [00:27:54] Speaker 04: The bound cable is coupled on one interlucable buckles. [00:27:57] Speaker 04: Why would that not be a pull cord? [00:28:00] Speaker 04: I believe it's not, Your Honor, within the meaning of the patent. [00:28:03] Speaker 04: Even if we assume it has a handle. [00:28:05] Speaker 05: I know you don't believe it. [00:28:06] Speaker 05: My question is why? [00:28:07] Speaker 04: Even if we assume the pull cord has a handle. [00:28:11] Speaker 04: There is no pulling of the pull cord in the accused device. [00:28:15] Speaker 04: There's an activation of a trigger rotating a lever on a fulcrum. [00:28:18] Speaker 04: Well, there's a pulling of the Bowden cable. [00:28:20] Speaker 04: The wire inside the cable moves to force the buckle release. [00:28:24] Speaker 05: Well, let's not get hyper-technical. [00:28:26] Speaker 05: The wire inside the Bowden cable is pulled. [00:28:32] Speaker 04: It becomes taut. [00:28:34] Speaker 04: It's not pulled by the user. [00:28:36] Speaker 04: But it does become taut, which forces the release of the buckle through the rotation of a lever. [00:28:40] Speaker 05: Dancing on the head of a pin here. [00:28:42] Speaker 04: Well, I think you're right. [00:28:43] Speaker 04: I think there's a fundamental that the accused device has functioned in a fundamentally different way than the pull cord as claimed in disclosure. [00:28:52] Speaker 04: Even if we were to assume the pull cord has a handle. [00:28:55] Speaker 05: Does the claim include a handle as a limitation? [00:29:01] Speaker 05: No. [00:29:02] Speaker 05: It is not. [00:29:03] Speaker 05: So that claim is not limited to pull cords with handles. [00:29:12] Speaker 04: It is not. [00:29:15] Speaker 04: I don't know if I'd use the word limited. [00:29:17] Speaker 04: The claim does not recite pull cords with handles at all. [00:29:20] Speaker 05: That's a limitation. [00:29:23] Speaker 05: So the limitation is missing. [00:29:26] Speaker 05: My understanding is, and I think you'd agree with me, that because that limitation is missing, the claim is broad enough to read on a pull cord without a handle. [00:29:36] Speaker 05: Correct? [00:29:37] Speaker 05: Right. [00:29:37] Speaker 04: Where I disagree with that is not when read within the context of the patent. [00:29:42] Speaker 05: Okay. [00:29:46] Speaker 02: I think we'll have to pull the cord on you. [00:29:48] Speaker 02: Thank you, Counselor. [00:29:53] Speaker 02: Mr. Ryerson has a little rebuttal time. [00:30:04] Speaker 03: May I please the court? [00:30:05] Speaker 03: I just want to address counsel's statements that the Icarus patents do not just show a handle at the end of the pull cord. [00:30:12] Speaker 03: In the claim construction briefing below in describing the Icarus patents, this is at Appendix 2386 of their briefing, defendants wrote, the pull cord includes a tab or bead on the end to facilitate gripping. [00:30:26] Speaker 03: Whether you call it a tab, a bead, or a handle, there's structure on the end to facilitate gripping. [00:30:31] Speaker 03: There was no disavowal here. [00:30:33] Speaker 03: There was no lexicography. [00:30:35] Speaker 03: And counsel admitted in the prior art that skilled artisans used the term pull cord to refer to cords with handles on the end. [00:30:42] Speaker 03: And then Chris Patton claims the term pull cord is entitled to that full scope. [00:30:48] Speaker 03: Unless the panel has any other questions, that's all the point I have for today. [00:30:53] Speaker 02: Thank you to both counsel. [00:30:54] Speaker 02: The case is submitted.