Iqris Technologies LLC v. Point Blank Enterprises, Inc.

130 F.4th 998

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: March 7, 2025
• Docket: 23-2062
• Status: Published

Opinion

Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 03/07/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC., NATIONAL MOLDING, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________

2023-2062 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in No. 0:21-cv-61976-BB, Judge Beth Bloom. ______________________

Decided: March 7, 2025 ______________________

JAMES LEWIS RYERSON, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Flor- ham Park, NJ, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also repre- sented by BARRY SCHINDLER, DOUGLAS R. WEIDER.

ROBERT FLUSKEY, II, Hodgson Russ LLP, Buffalo, NY, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by MELISSA SUBJECK. ______________________

Before LOURIE, LINN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 03/07/2025

STOLL, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant IQRIS Technologies LLC (“IQRIS”) sued Defendants-Appellees Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. (“Point Blank”) and National Molding, LLC (“National Molding”) (collectively, “Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for in- fringement of two of IQRIS’s patents. Point Blank and Na- tional Molding moved for summary judgment of noninfringement, arguing that the accused products lacked a “pull cord” as required by the asserted patent claims. The district court granted the motion, concluding that the two accused products did not infringe literally or under the doc- trine of equivalents as a matter of law. IQRIS appeals, ar- guing the summary judgment rests on an erroneous construction of the claim term “pull cord.” Because the dis- trict court’s construction improperly limited “pull cord” to a directly pulled cord that lacks a handle, we vacate the grant of summary judgment and remand for further con- sideration consistent with this opinion. BACKGROUND I The asserted patents in this case, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,814,567 (“the ’567 patent”) and 8,256,020 (“the ’020 patent”), share a common specification. The asserted patents relate to quick release systems on tactical vests worn by soldiers, law enforcement officers, and other first responders. As the specification explains, if a first re- sponder wearing a protective vest is injured, she may need to remove the vest quickly to receive medical attention. Al- ternatively, a soldier in danger of drowning due to being weighed down by the tactical vest needs to be able to re- move it quickly. The background section of the specification describes prior art tactical vests that use fasteners such as Velcro, snaps, or buckles, requiring a user to manipulate several Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 3 Filed: 03/07/2025

IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC. 3

fasteners, typically one at a time, making removal time consuming or impossible. The background also describes conventional “cutaway vests” with three sections—front, back, and cummerbund—attached together by cables. To remove the vest, the user pulls a handle that is attached to the cables and withdraws the cables from the vest thereby disassembling the vest sections. Reassembly requires manually rerouting a cable through a series of rings and loops to bring the various vest components back together. The specification explains reassembly of cutaway systems “can be a time consuming and tedious process.” ’567 patent col. 2 ll. 2–3. The asserted patents purport to overcome the problems in these conventional vests by providing a protective gar- ment with “a reduction in operating parts, faster release, and quicker reassembly than the systems currently in use.” Id. at col. 2 ll. 5–7. As shown in Figure 1B of the asserted patents (reproduced below), tactical ballistic vest (100) has a front portion (10) and connectors—each connector includ- ing a hook (13) and an anchor strap (15)—for releasably at- taching the front portion (10) to a back portion (20) (not shown). Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 4 Filed: 03/07/2025

Id. Fig. 1B. As shown, each releasable hook (13): (a) attaches to an anchor strap (15), which is affixed to the front portion (10); and (b) includes a release knob (17) for moving the hook (13) into an open position. Most relevant here, the specification discloses that cords (18) and (18a) connect to release knobs (17) on releasable hooks (13). “[W]hen the pull cord [(16)] is pulled” the releasable hooks (13) “disen- gag[e] simultaneously” and the front portion of the vest completely detaches from the rear portion. Id. at col. 5 ll. 9–12. Claim 1 of the ’567 patent is representative of the as- serted claims and recites: 1. A ballistic garment, comprising: a front panel of the ballistic garment; a rear panel of the ballistic garment; a plurality of rings, wherein each of the plurality of rings is fastened to a first end of a respective anchor element and each of a second end of each respective anchor element is fixed to the rear panel of the ballistic garment; at least one releasable hook for releasably attach- ing the front panel of the ballistic garment to the rear panel of the ballistic garment, wherein the at least one releasable hook is fastened to the front panel of the ballistic garment; wherein each of the plurality of rings is releasably clasped by the at least one releasable hook; wherein a cover at least partially covers the plural- ity of rings and the at least one releasable hook; and a pull cord coupled to the at least one releasable hook, wherein the pull cord actuates the at Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 5 Filed: 03/07/2025

IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC. 5

least one releasable hook to disengage the at least one releasable hook to which the pull cord is coupled from the at least two rings to allow detachment of at least a part of the front panel of the ballistic garment from at least a part of the rear panel of the ballistic garment. Id. at col. 6 ll. 27–51. II National Molding manufactures precision-engineered plastic components, among which are the “Quad Release” and “Evil Twin” quick-release systems for tactical vests. Point Blank sells tactical vests that incorporate the Quad Release and Evil Twin release systems (the “Accused Prod- ucts”). Quad Release and Evil Twin share many common features but are not identical. Both Accused Products include a trigger that sits atop a base for the trigger, called a trigger manifold. Both also use “Bowden” cables, which consist of a wire inside a sheath, where mechanical force is transmitted by move- ment of the wire within the outer sheath. J.A. 5102. Bicy- cle brake systems commonly use Bowden cables. In the Accused Products, multiple Bowden cables are connected to the trigger. Activation of the trigger on the trigger man- ifold causes movement of the wires within the sheath, which in turn disengages the vest by releasing the buckles. As to the differences between the Accused Products, Quad Release has four Bowden cables while Evil Twin has two. Quad Release and Evil Twin also use different trig- gers. The trigger of Quad Release is a type of lever that, when moved, pulls the wire inside the Bowden cables, whereas the Evil Twin trigger is a sliding mechanism that does the same when moved. Despite these differences, IQRIS did not raise distinct infringement arguments for the two Accused Products before the district court. Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 6 Filed: 03/07/2025

III The parties disputed the interpretation of the claim term “pull cord.” IQRIS proposed construing the term as “a component which, when put into tension, can result in activating the releasable fastener.” IQRIS Techs. LLC v. Point Blank Enters., Inc., No. 21-cv-61976, 2022 WL 17176840, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 23, 2022). Point Blank and National Molding asserted that a pull cord is “a cord on the exterior of the ballistic garment grasped by a user that is capable of disengaging the releasable fastener or releasa- ble hook when a user pulls on the pull cord.” Id. Following briefing and a Markman hearing, the district court con- strued “pull cord” as a “cord that can be directly pulled by a user to disengage a releasable fastener or releasable hook.” Id. at *4. Although the parties disputed whether the pull cord was external or internal to the vest, the court declined to “define pull cord in terms of its location” be- cause language describing the pull cord as “on the protec- tive garment,” i.e., external, would improperly read individual embodiments of the invention into the claims. Id. 1 Point Blank and National Molding then moved for summary judgment of noninfringement, arguing that the Accused Products lack a “pull cord” as construed by the dis- trict court. Addressing literal infringement, the district court held that the Accused Products’ “trigger manifold” “is not a ‘cord,’ but rather a rigid structure that consists of a lever in the Quad Release, and a slide in the Evil Twin.” IQRIS Techs. LLC v. Point Blank Enters., Inc., 669 F. Supp. 3d 1256, 1268 (S.D. Fla. 2023). Continuing, the court determined the Bowden cables on the Accused Products are entirely internal to the vest and cannot be di- rectly pulled by a user without ripping into the vest and

1 Neither party challenges this aspect of the district court’s claim construction. Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 7 Filed: 03/07/2025

IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC. 7

thus held that “neither the Bowden cables nor their inter- nal wires satisfies the Court’s definition of ‘pull cord.’” Id. The district court rejected IQRIS’s “attempts to create is- sues of fact” through expert testimony that the trigger in the Accused Products acts as a handle to pull on the pull cord (i.e., internal wire in Bowden cable) such that a user ‘directly’ pulls the cord. Id. at 1268–69. The district court concluded that, even treating the trigger as a handle, the Bowden cables are analogous to the generic cords (18) and (18a) illustrated in Figure 1B, “which a user indirectly tightens by directly pulling on the pull cord.” Id. The dis- trict court explained “it is the pull cord’s function of being ‘directly’ pulled by a user that distinguishes the pull cord from other ‘cords’ described and depicted within the Pa- tents.” Id. at 1268. Because the court’s construction re- quired the pull cord to be directly pulled by the user, the court also rejected IQRIS’s arguments that (1) adding an additional object to the end of a pull cord to aid in gripping would not transform the pull cord into something other than a pull cord; and (2) the asserted patent claims use comprising language and thus do not exclude the existence of additional components such as triggers. Id. at 1269. The district court concluded that the Accused Products “do not simply have objects attached to the end of the wire to make gripping easier”; “[r]ather, they have an entirely separate mechanism—the ‘trigger manifold’—that replaces the pull cord altogether.” Id. Based on this conclusion, the court granted summary judgment of no literal infringement for both Accused Products. The court next considered whether to grant summary judgment of no infringement under the doctrine of equiva- lents. The court held that, under its construction of pull cord, no reasonable jury could find that the Accused Prod- ucts with Quad Release infringe the asserted claims by equivalents because, under the function, way, result test, the Quad Release operates in a different way: by allowing a user to apply “indirect force to the internal wire by Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 8 Filed: 03/07/2025

applying a direct force to the trigger.” Id. at 1270. As fur- ther support for its determination, the court emphasized Defendants’ expert testimony that the Quad Release has a “mechanical advantage” over a pull cord because the trig- ger reduces the amount of force that the user must apply to activate the release. Id. The court explained that its function, way, result analysis applied solely to Quad Re- lease because “there is insufficient evidence indicating how [the Evil Twin] system operates and whether it provides any advantage over the pull cord system.” Id. at 1271. The court held that even assuming the Evil Twin trig- ger is equivalent to the claimed pull cord under the func- tion, way, result test, summary judgement of no equivalent infringement was appropriate because holding otherwise would ensnare the prior art criticized in the background of the invention section of the specification. Specifically, the court concluded that IQRIS’s equivalency argument relied on viewing the Accused Products’ triggers as handles at- tached to a pull cord. In the court’s view, however, the as- serted patents “disparage . . . cutaway vests with ‘handle’ release systems because they entailed a tedious and time- consuming reassembly process.” Id. at 1271–72. Thus, the court reasoned, if it considered the Quad Release and Evil Twin trigger systems equivalent to the claimed pull cord, it would allow the patents-in-suit to cover the very prior art design that they explicitly criticized. Id. at 1272. IQRIS appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). DISCUSSION IQRIS urges us to vacate the district court’s summary judgment because it rests on an erroneous construction of “pull cord.” Specifically, IQRIS contends the district court erroneously construed “pull cord” to (1) require a user to pull on the pull cord directly; and (2) exclude cords that in- clude a handle. We address each issue in turn below. Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 9 Filed: 03/07/2025

IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC. 9

Claim construction “is ultimately a question of law we review de novo where, as here, it is decided only on the in- trinsic evidence.” Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc., 44 F.4th 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2022). We review a district court’s entry of summary judgment under the law of the regional circuit, here the Eleventh Circuit. See Teva Pharm. Indus. v. AstraZeneca Pharms. LP, 661 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In the Eleventh Circuit, a grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, “construing the facts and all reasonable inferences from the facts in favor of the nonmoving party.” Lanard Toys Ltd. v. Dolgencorp LLC, 958 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation omit- ted). I DIRECTLY PULLED We first address whether the district court erred by limiting “pull cord” to cords that are directly pulled by a user. The parties rely exclusively on intrinsic evidence to interpret this term, and the record lacks any other evidence as to how a person of ordinary skill would understand pull cord. We start with the claim language. The claims merely recite that the pull cord is “coupled to the at least one re- leasable hook” and that “the pull cord actuates the at least one releasable hook to disengage the at least one releasable hook to which the pull cord is coupled.” ’567 patent col. 6 ll. 45–48. The claims say nothing about who or what pulls the pull cord. Thus, the claim language itself suggests that a “pull cord” is a cord that actuates a releasable hook when pulled. The claims do not specify pulling directly or indi- rectly. Turning to the specification, we acknowledge the dis- trict court’s observation that the specification refers to ele- ment (16), which is directly pulled, as a “pull cord,” but refers to element (18), which is indirectly pulled, simply as a “cord.” Id. at col. 5 ll. 12–14. In our view, this is the Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 10 Filed: 03/07/2025

strongest evidence in support of the district court’s con- struction. While this is a close question, we are not inclined under our precedent to limit the term “pull cord” to the preferred embodiments in the specification. Even when all embodi- ments in the written description depict a pull cord that is directly pulled, our precedent counsels against reading this requirement into the claims when the claims do not ex- pressly require as much. There is a fine line between read- ing the claims in light of the specification and importing limitations from the specification into the claims, and here, where there is no evidence suggesting that the ordinary meaning of pull cord is limited to a cord that is directly pulled, we are not inclined to import limitations from the preferred embodiments into the claimed invention. Playtex Prods., Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 400 F.3d 901, 907–08 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (collecting cases). It is the claims, not the preferred embodiments, that define the metes and bounds of the patentee’s invention. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). As is the case here, the patentee is free to choose a term and ex- pect to obtain the full scope of its plain and ordinary mean- ing unless the patentee explicitly redefines the term or disavows its full scope. Given the claim language and ab- sence of lexicography or disavowal, we do not adopt the dis- trict court’s interpretation requiring a pull cord to be directly pulled by a user. EXCLUDING A HANDLE IQRIS contends that neither the plain and ordinary meaning of “pull cord” nor the text of the asserted claims and shared specification limit the meaning of the term “pull cord” to a cord excluding a handle. We agree—noth- ing in the claim language, specification, or prosecution his- tory supports this construction. Starting with the claim language, the representative claim recites: “a pull cord coupled to the at least one Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 11 Filed: 03/07/2025

IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC. 11

releasable hook, wherein the pull cord actuates the at least one releasable hook to disengage the at least one releasable hook . . . to allow detachment of at least a part of the front panel of the ballistic garment.” ’567 patent col. 6 ll. 45–50. The claim language recites what the pull cord does, but it is silent about the structure of the pull cord. Nor does the specification support the conclusion that a pull cord cannot have a handle. Indeed, the specification suggests otherwise because each of the figures depicts a cir- cular ball at the end of the pull cord (16), suggesting that the inventors contemplated pull cords with handles. While Defendants urged the district court to construe “pull cord” as not including a handle, they admitted that the patent “figures also illustrate that the pull cord (16) includes a tab or bead on the end of the pull cord (16) to aid grip during pulling.” J.A. 2386. We do not agree with the district court that the specifi- cation disclaims pull cords that include a handle by dispar- aging prior art cutaway vests with a handle because “they entailed a tedious and time-consuming reassembly pro- cess.” IQRIS Techs., 669 F. Supp. 3d at 1271. “To disavow claim scope, the specification must contain ‘expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear dis- avowal of claim scope.’” Cont’l Cirs. LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Here, the specification criticizes re- assembly of cutaway vests as a “time consuming and tedi- ous process.” ’567 patent col. 2 ll. 2–3. But the specification also explains that this is because “the cables need to be rerouted through the entire series of rings and loops throughout the vest, thereby interlocking the vest components together”—not because of the handle per se. Id. at col. 1 l. 67–col. 2 l. 2. While a user actuates disas- sembly of the cutaway vest by pulling “a handle that is at- tached to the cables,” the specification disparages the time consuming and tedious process of reassembling the vest, Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 12 Filed: 03/07/2025

not the use of a handle. Id. at col. 1 ll. 63–64. Indeed, no- where does the specification particularly criticize the cuta- way vest’s handle. “[T]he standard for disavowal is exacting, requiring clear and unequivocal evidence that the claimed invention includes or does not include a particular feature.” Poly-Am., L.P. v. API Indus., Inc., 839 F.3d 1131, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This high bar is not satisfied here where, at most, the specification identifies shortcomings in the prior art that are not specifically directed to the handle. Defendants nonetheless assert that, although the over- all design of the cutaway vests results in the “difficult re- assembly process, the fundamental feature at fault is the handle.” Appellees’ Br. 39 (emphasis removed). But this assertion is unsupported by the specification, which says nothing derogatory about the handle. As such, the specifi- cation cannot be reasonably viewed as a clear and unequiv- ocal disavowal of handles. Our conclusion is further supported by other portions of the patent specification. The specification discloses that, in the present invention, the pull cord is coupled to a re- leasable hook such that, after the releasable hook is disen- gaged, the vest can be reassembled by reengaging the hook to the corresponding ring, as opposed to rerouting a cable through a series of rings and loops as a cutaway vest re- quires. As the specification explains, because of this “con- figuration of the connectors, the present invention can offer up to 95% faster reassembly of a detached garment over the prior art systems.” ’567 patent col. 6 ll. 9–11. Nothing in the specification suggests that reassembly of the vest via the releasable hook would be impacted by the presence or absence of a handle on the pull cord. For these reasons, we conclude that the district court erred by interpreting “pull cord” to exclude pull cords that include a handle when analyzing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 13 Filed: 03/07/2025

IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC. 13

II The district court’s summary judgment of no literal or equivalent infringement depended on a flawed construc- tion that improperly limited “pull cord.” Because we reject the district court’s claim construction, we vacate the judg- ment of noninfringement. Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen King- domway Grp. Co., 790 F.3d 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Summary judgment should ordinarily be vacated or re- versed if the district court bases summary judgment on an erroneous claim construction.”). We leave to the district court on remand the task of applying the correct claim con- struction in the first instance under appropriate factual de- velopment, including the issues of literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. We do not decide whether summary judgment would be appropriate under our new construction of “pull cord.” CONCLUSION We have considered the remaining arguments and do not find them persuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we vacate and remand the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement. VACATED AND REMANDED COSTS Costs to Appellant.