Claim Construction Reversed Where Limitation Read Out of Claim

Randall May Int'l, Inc. v. DEG Music Prods., Inc. (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2010) (nonprecedential)

In this case the Federal Circuit held that the district court's claim construction was in error where the construction read out an "adjustability" limitation for one element of the claims.

The patent at issue related to a shoulder-mounted harness for holding a percussion instrument, typically a drum, upon the torso of a musician in a marching band.  One limitation of the claims at issue was directed to the claimed harness "having changeable or adjustable shoulder supporting members."  The district court's claim construction of this term addressed the changeability of the shoulder supporting members but did not address the adjustability of the members.

The Federal Circuit, in an opinion by Chief Judge Michel, reiterated that claim construction is reviewed de novo however "in reviewing a district court's claim construction, this court takes into account the views of the trial judge … [t]hough we review those views and the record de novo, 'common sense dictates that the trial judge's view will carry weight.'" (internal citations omitted).  In this particular case, "the district court provided no explanation of the reasoning behind its claim construction."

The Court found that the claim language teaches that the shoulder supporting members are changeable or adjustable as "these terms immediately precede the term 'shoulder supporting members' and the only reasonable construction, therefore, is that these shoulder supporting members themselves, rather than the entire assembly, should be adjustable or changeable."  Further, all embodiments described in the specification taught that the shoulder straps are changeable, adjustable, or both.  The Court concluded that "[t]he district court's elision of the claim limitation (supported by the specification) that the shoulder supporting members are either changeable or adjustable is legal error because all the limitation in a claim must be considered meaningful."