Jackson v. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.

139 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1807, 2001 WL 201372
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana
DecidedJanuary 16, 2001
DocketIP 98-1712-C-Y/G
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 139 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (Jackson v. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jackson v. Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1807, 2001 WL 201372 (S.D. Ind. 2001).

Opinion

ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS OF U.S. PATENT NO. 4,596,900

YOUNG, District Judge.

This is a patent case. Plaintiff Philip S. Jackson (“Jackson”), is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 4,596,900 (“the ’900 patent”). The ’900 patent discloses and claims a set of electronic circuits for remotely controlling appliances or devices through the use of tones produced by touch-tone telephones. This invention can be connected to, for example, a heating or air conditioning system or a lighting system, and enables a caller to remotely control the attached appliance. For purposes of this action against Thomson Consumer Electronics (“Thomson”), Jackson’s invention also relates to a feature common to telephone answering machines, referred to in the telephone answering device industry as “beeperless” remote control or “tone” remote control. In his Complaint, Jackson directly accuses nine Thomson products of infringing his ’900 Patent, namely, Thomson’s “GE” Models 2-9975, 2-9991, 2-9866, 2-9827, 2-9831, 2-9824, 2-9802, 2-9790, and 2-9740. (Complaint, ¶ 47). Jackson also suggests the existence of other allegedly infringing Thomson devices by making reference to “... other Thomson devices constructed in a similarly infringing fashion ...” Id.

On June 8-9, 2000, the court held a hearing in accordance with Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996) to construe disputed claims of the ’900 patent. This is the court’s construction of those disputed claims.

I. Factual and Procedural History

The court draws the following facts from the Complaint, the briefs submitted by the parties in connection with the Markman hearing, and the testimony and evidence presented during the hearing.

*1006 On June 24, 1986, the Patent and Trademark Office issued the ’900 patent. The ’900 patent relates to a novel apparatus that responds to a predetermined sequence of tones, such as the touch-tones generated by most telephones, to enable the user to control — from a remote location — a large number of functions associated with the apparatus, and to do so in a simple, inexpensive, highly reliable, flexible, and convenient manner. Jackson did not invent touch-tone remote control per se, but his invention improved touch-tone remote control so much that it made it practical for use in consumer electronics products such as telephone answering machines. This feature often is referred to in the telephone answering machine industry as “beeperless” remote control or “tone” remote control. It enables a user to call his or her telephone answering machine at a remote location and, by then pressing the “3” and “1” buttons (for example) on the telephone, cause the machine to play back any messages recorded on the machine. Pressing other buttons enables remote control of other features.

Jackson’s patent describes the structure for utilizing his invention in terms of digital logic integrated circuitry {e.g., AND gates, NAND gates, OR gates, counters, etc.). Today’s telephone answering machines sold by Thomson (and the rest of the industry) employ digital logic integrated circuitry by using “microprocessors” or “microchips” which have the same components {e.g., AND gates, NAND gates, OR gates, counters, etc.).

In 1994, Matsushita Electric Co. and Kazuo Hashimoto (Matsushita’s licensor for patents relating to telephone answering machines) attacked Jackson’s patent three times by way of reexaminations in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). At issue here are those claims set forth in the second Reexamination Certificate issued by the PTO on August 26, 1997, Reexamination Certifícate No. B2 4,696,900. After briefing this issue, the parties have pared down the claims in dispute to Claims 1, 5 and 10.

II. Claim Construction

Construction of patent claims is a matter of law for the court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996). Claims are construed from the vantage point of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Id. at 986. In construing a claim, the court first looks to the intrinsic evidence of record, namely, the language of the claim, the specification, and the prosecution history. E.g., Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996). In most circumstances, the intrinsic evidence will provide sufficient information for construing the terms. Id. at 1583.

A. Intrinsic Evidence

The court must begin with the claim language, which defines the scope of the claims. See York Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family, 99 F.3d 1568, 1572 (Fed.Cir.1996). In analyzing claim language, the court must give the words of the claim their ordinary and customary meaning. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582.

In order to give context to the claim language, the court must also review the specification:

The specification acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication ... As we have repeatedly stated, “[e]laims must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.” ... The specification contains a written description of the invention which must be clear and complete *1007 enough to enable those of ordinary skill in the art to make and use it. Thus, the specification is always relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it’s the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.

Id. at 1582.

The last source of intrinsic evidence relevant to claim interpretation is the prosecution history of the patent, if it has been made part of the record.

This history contains the complete record of all proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, including any express representations made by the applicant regarding the scope of the claims. As such, the record before the Patent and Trademark Office is often of critical importance in determining the meaning of claims.

Id.

Moreover, the court may examine technical treatises and dictionaries “at any time” in order to better understand the underlying technology and can rely on this evidence to construe the claims so long as it does not contradict the patent documents. Id. at 1584, n. 6.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jackson v. Casio PhoneMate, Inc.
166 F. Supp. 2d 1237 (N.D. Illinois, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
139 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1807, 2001 WL 201372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-thomson-consumer-electronics-inc-insd-2001.