Tippmann Engineering, LLC v. Innovative Refrigeration Systems, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: January 3, 2023
• Docket: 22-1318
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 22-1318 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 01/03/2023

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

TIPPMANN ENGINEERING, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

INNOVATIVE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS, INC., MICHAEL J. MCGINNIS, JR., Defendants-Appellees ______________________

2022-1318 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia in No. 5:19-cv-00087-MFU- JCH, Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski. ______________________

Decided: January 3, 2023 ______________________

ANDREW M. MCCOY, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Indianapolis, IN, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by ALEXANDRA LAKSHMANAN LUSTER, Denver, CO; LUCAS J. TOMSICH, East Palo Alto, CA.

JOSHUA GLIKIN, Bowie & Jensen, LLC, Towson, MD, ar- gued for defendants-appellees. ______________________ Case: 22-1318 Document: 44 Page: 2 Filed: 01/03/2023

Before REYNA, SCHALL, and CHEN, Circuit Judges. CHEN, Circuit Judge. Tippmann Engineering, LLC (Tippmann) sued Innova- tive Refrigeration Systems, Inc., and Michael J. McGinnis, Jr., (collectively, Innovative) for infringement of U.S. Pa- tent No. 9,297,570 (’570 patent). Following the district court’s claim construction order, the parties stipulated to non-infringement, and the district court entered final judg- ment. Because we agree with the district court’s construc- tion of the dispositive claim term, we affirm. BACKGROUND I The ’570 patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 8,783,047 (’047 patent) and is directed to a “large ware- house, building, or structure” that is “used as a giant freezer that both freezes and maintains perishable foods or like products.” ’570 patent col. 1 ll. 29–32. Unlike “two- stage freezer warehouses,” where products are rapidly fro- zen in “blast rooms” before being “moved to the storage parts of the warehouse,” the ’570 patent teaches a “one- stage freezing storage system” that utilizes “a specially configured rack system that assists [in] freezing the prod- uct directly in the open warehouse space.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 32–42. Removing the blast rooms has two benefits. First, more space can be dedicated to storing the product, thus “[i]ncreasing capacity or maneuvering room in a ware- house.” Id. at col. 2 ll. 4–8. Second, by freezing the product in the same location that it is stored, the ’570 patent’s con- figuration “no longer requires transporting the pallet from the blast room to a separate storage location in the ware- house.” Id. at col. 2 ll. 24–27. The ’570 patent specification is short but very clearly describes a lone embodiment in which the disclosed ware- house comprises “rows of racking” separated by aisles. Id. at col. 2 ll. 10–11. In each row, “pallets 4 are positioned Case: 22-1318 Document: 44 Page: 3 Filed: 01/03/2023

TIPPMANN ENGINEERING, LLC v. 3 INNOVATIVE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS, INC.

several high on opposing sides and along chamber 6,” as shown below:

Id. FIG. 4, col. 1 ll. 46–48; see also id. at col. 2 ll. 28–34. The ’570 patent explains that its specially configured rack system operates as follows: Cold air produced in warehouse 2 is drawn through spacers . . . separating rows of cases of product on the pallet. This air cools the product down while being drawn into chamber 6 indicated by direc- tional arrow 16. In an illustrative embodiment, and as further discussed herein, openings 30 along the periphery of chamber 6 mate with cases 22 on the pallets 4 . . . . The only significant way to move the cold air inside warehouse 2 is by going through and/or around the product on pallet 4. The air 16 drawn into chamber 6 can then be recooled and re- circulated, or exhausted. Because the cold air moves around product prior to entering chamber 6, it provides an efficient means for freezing. Id. at col. 1 ll. 48–59; see also id. at col. 2 ll. 29–32 (“[F]an 12 draws air in as indicated by directional arrow 16 Case: 22-1318 Document: 44 Page: 4 Filed: 01/03/2023

through and around cases of product 22 on pallets 4 before entering chamber 6.”). The patent also discloses “chillers” that produce the cold air that flows through the product to both freeze it and maintain its frozen condition: Chillers 8 inside warehouse 2 produce the cold air that flows through aisles 10 and into chambers 6. It is appreciated that chillers 8 can be positioned in different locations as needed inside ware- house 2. . . . The chilled air passes through open spaces near or through cases of product in order to enter chamber 6. Air handlers, such as fans 12 in- side or in air flow communication with chamber 6 assist in drawing the air within warehouse 2 through the palletized and/or through the product cases and into the channel. Continuing this pro- cess freezes the product as well as maintains its frozen condition. Id. at col. 1 l. 60 – col. 2 l. 4. Independent claim 1 is representative and recites: 1. An installation for warehousing pallets of prod- uct, comprising: a warehouse defining a warehouse space set to a desired air temperature; and a pallet racking assembly disposed in the warehouse space, the pallet racking assem- bly comprising: a pallet receiving space sized and configured to receive a pallet as- sembly including a pallet and a plu- rality of vertically stacked rows of cases disposed on the pallet and providing an airflow pathway Case: 22-1318 Document: 44 Page: 5 Filed: 01/03/2023

TIPPMANN ENGINEERING, LLC v. 5 INNOVATIVE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS, INC.

through the vertically stacked rows of cases; an airflow chamber including an air inlet and an air outlet; a fan positioned to direct air into the airflow chamber from the air in- let and exhaust air into the ware- house space through the air outlet; and a wall disposed between the pallet receiving space and the airflow chamber, the wall having an air- flow opening defining an opening periphery, the opening sized and positioned to be sealingly engaged by the pallet assembly when the pallet assembly is pressed against the opening periphery, whereby the air at the desired air temperature can pass into the airflow pathway of the pallet assembly to thereby transfer heat between the product and the air. Id. at col. 4 ll. 24–48 (emphases added). The italicized phrases are the focus of this appeal. II Tippmann sued Innovative, alleging that Innovative infringed claims 1–4, 8–16, and 19–22 of the ’570 patent. J.A. 1–2. On November 9, 2021, the district court issued a claim construction order. Tippmann Eng’g, LLC v. Innova- tive Refrigeration Sys., Inc., No. 5:19-cv-87, 2021 WL 5236872 (W.D. Va. Nov. 9, 2021) (Claim Construction Or- der). Case: 22-1318 Document: 44 Page: 6 Filed: 01/03/2023

Relevant here, the parties disputed whether “an air in- let and an air outlet” and “a fan positioned to direct the air into the airflow chamber from the air inlet and exhaust air into the warehouse space through the air outlet” (collec- tively, Air Flow Terms) require a negative-pressure ar- rangement (also called an induced air arrangement), in which air is drawn or sucked through the products to be frozen, or whether the Air Flow Terms also encompass a positive-pressure arrangement, in which air is forced or pushed through the products to be frozen. Id. at *2; see also J.A. 237–38; J.A. 542 ¶ 47. The district court found the claims are limited to a negative-pressure arrangement be- cause “all figures and embodiments disclosed in the ’047 and ’570 Patents’ shared specification either imply an in- duced air arrangement or expressly disclose an induced air arrangement” and that “no other embodiment or design is ever taught, illustrated, or suggested.” Claim Construction Order, 2021 WL 5236872, at *12–13. The district court also found that the “prosecution history of the ’047 Patent in- forms and limits the scope of the ’570 claims” because Tipp- mann distinguished two prior art references disclosing positive-pressure arrangements by “vigorously argu[ing] that all of its independent claims required an ‘induced air arrangement,’ i.e., negative air pressure.” Id. at *7. Thus, the district court construed “an air inlet and an air outlet” to mean “air intake(s) positioned along the wall of the air chamber that correspond to each pallet position, and an air outlet positioned at the top of the chamber from which air is exhausted from the chamber back into the warehouse space.” Id. at *16. The court also construed “a fan posi- tioned to direct the air into the airflow chamber from the air inlet and exhaust air into the warehouse space through the air outlet” to mean “the fan is positioned to create a negative pressure in the chamber that pulls air from the air inlets/intakes and pushes the air through the air outlet at the top of the chamber.” Id. Case: 22-1318 Document: 44 Page: 7 Filed: 01/03/2023

TIPPMANN ENGINEERING, LLC v. 7 INNOVATIVE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS, INC.

The parties further disputed the construction of the term “a warehouse defining a warehouse space set to a de- sired air temperature” (Warehouse Term). The court first explained that, although the ’570 patent’s claims “do not expressly include the air chiller element,” “it would be clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the system needs a chiller to function.” Id. at *7 (citing ’570 patent col. 1 ll. 60–61). The court then found that “the chiller must be within the warehouse space” because (1) the specifica- tion teaches that the chiller “can be positioned in different locations as needed inside warehouse 2,” ’570 patent col. 1 ll. 61–63, and (2) “Tippmann emphatically distinguished [the ’047 patent’s] application from [the prior art], assert- ing that its independent claims require ‘at least one chiller in the . . . warehouse space,’” J.A. 937. See Claim Construc- tion Order, 2021 WL 5236872, at *7, *11. Thus, the court construed “a warehouse defining a warehouse space set to a desired air temperature” to mean “a structure containing a space used as a giant freezer that contains a chiller and both freezes and maintains perishable foods or like prod- ucts.” Id. at *16. Based on the court’s constructions, the parties stipu- lated that Innovative did not infringe the asserted claims and requested the court enter judgment of non-infringe- ment. J.A. 4–5. The district court entered a final judgment on December 3, 2021. J.A. 1–2. Tippmann timely ap- pealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1295(a)(1). DISCUSSION We review claim construction based on intrinsic evi- dence de novo and review any findings of fact regarding ex- trinsic evidence for clear error. SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 998 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (cit- ing Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 331–32 (2015)). Case: 22-1318 Document: 44 Page: 8 Filed: 01/03/2023

I. Air Flow Terms Tippmann argues that the district court’s construction of the Air Flow Terms is erroneous because the plain and ordinary meaning of the claims does not require a negative- pressure arrangement, and neither the ’570 patent’s speci- fication nor the prosecution history of the ’047 or ’570 pa- tents disclaim positive-pressure arrangements. Appellant’s Br. 24–52. We disagree. Claim construction requires determining how a skilled artisan would understand a claim term “in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The specification is the “single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term,” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996), and is “the primary basis for construing the claims,” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, alt- hough claim terms are normally given their ordinary and customary meaning, where the inventor has disavowed claim scope by manifesting that the invention does or does not include a particular aspect, that intention “is regarded as dispositive.” Id. at 1316 (citing SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). “A disavowal must be clear, but it need not be explicit.” Techtronic Indus. Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 944 F.3d 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Sy- mantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). “Dis- avowal ‘may be inferred from clear limiting descriptions of the invention in the specification or prosecution history.’” Id. (first quoting Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012); and then citing Blackbird Tech LLC v. ELB Elecs., Inc., 895 F.3d 1374, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (collecting cases and finding no disavowal where the specification did not teach that the feature in question was “important, essential, or critical to the invention”)). In Case: 22-1318 Document: 44 Page: 9 Filed: 01/03/2023

TIPPMANN ENGINEERING, LLC v. 9 INNOVATIVE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS, INC.

the end, “the purpose of claim construction is to ‘capture the scope of the actual invention,’ and whether ‘the embod- iments . . . define the outer limits of the claim term,’ or are ‘merely . . . exemplary in nature,’ is a question that must be determined in the context of the particular patent.’” Id. (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323–24). We conclude the ’570 patent is singularly devoted to a negative-pressure system in which cold air is drawn into the chamber. The specification discloses as the invention a specially configured rack system that draws cold air from the warehouse through the palletized product to both freeze and store the product. See, e.g., ’570 patent col. 1 ll. 48–51 (“Cold air produced in warehouse 2 is drawn through spacers 20 (see FIG. 6) separating rows of cases of product on the pallet. This air cools the product down while being drawn into chamber 6 indicated by directional arrow 16.” (emphases added)); id. at col 1 l. 56 (“The air 16 drawn into chamber 6 . . . .” (emphasis added)); id. at col. 1 ll. 57–59 (“Because the cold air moves around the product prior to entering chamber 6, it provides an efficient means for freezing.” (emphasis added)); id. at col. 1 l. 66 – col 2 l. 4 (“Air handlers, such as fans 12 inside or in air flow commu- nication with chamber 6, assist in drawing the air within warehouse 2 through the palletized and/or through the product cases and into the channel. Continuing this pro- cess freezes the product as well as maintains its frozen con- dition.” (emphasis added)); id. at col. 2 ll. 29–32 (“[F]an 12 draws air in as indicated by directional arrow 16 through and around cases of product 22 on pallets 4 before entering chamber 6.” (emphasis added)); see also id. at Abstract (“A plurality of racking structures each define an air flow chamber having air intake openings on opposite sides thereof and an air outlet to enable freezing air to be drawn into the chamber through the intake openings and ex- hausting into the warehouse space. Pallets on pallet guides are pressed against the intake openings such that freezing air is drawn through the palletized product to Case: 22-1318 Document: 44 Page: 10 Filed: 01/03/2023

thereby quickly freeze the product.” (emphases added)); id. FIGS. 4, 6, 10 (arrows 16 depicting air flow from the ware- house aisles, through the product, and into chamber 6). This arrangement, whereby cold air is drawn from the warehouse through the palletized product and into the chamber between the pallets, is a negative-pressure ar- rangement, and no other arrangement is taught or sug- gested. When viewed in its entirety, the ’570 patent’s disclosure is unambiguously focused on and limited to a negative-pressure arrangement, thereby excluding a posi- tive-pressure system. See E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Unifrax I LLC, 921 F.3d 1060, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“When the specification makes clear that the invention does not include a particular feature, that feature is deemed to be outside the reach of the claims of the patent, even though the language of the claims, read without ref- erence to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the feature in question.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Thus, we find the ’570 patent’s specification clearly disavows a positive-pres- sure arrangement. Tippmann presents three arguments in response. First, Tippmann argues that dependent claims 5–7 and 17–18 recite limitations that require a negative-pressure arrangement, and thus the independent claims are not so limited. Appellant’s Br. 46–50. But as Tippmann’s brief concedes, claim differentiation only creates a presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope. Appel- lant’s Br. 46–47 (citing Versa Corp. v. Ag-Bag Int’l Ltd., 392 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). As we have explained, “claim differentiation is not a hard and fast rule, and the presumption can be overcome by a contrary construction required by the specification or prosecution history, such as via a disclaimer.” GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation omit- ted). Here, any claim differentiation presumption is Case: 22-1318 Document: 44 Page: 11 Filed: 01/03/2023

TIPPMANN ENGINEERING, LLC v. 11 INNOVATIVE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS, INC.

overcome by the specification’s clear disavowal of a posi- tive-pressure arrangement. Second, Tippmann argues that construing the claims to require a negative-pressure arrangement improperly reads in limitations from the only disclosed embodiment. Appellant’s Br. 43–46. We disagree. Tippmann’s argu- ment ignores, for example, the fact that the Abstract, which does not refer to the “illustrative embodiment,” ex- plains that “freezing air is drawn through the palletized product to thereby quickly freeze the product.” ’570 patent Abstract; see also Hill-Rom Co. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 209 F.3d 1337, 1341 n.* (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“We have fre- quently looked to the abstract to determine the scope of the invention . . . .” (citations omitted)). Additionally, as we ex- plained in Phillips, “[o]ne of the best ways to teach a person of ordinary skill in the art how to make and use the inven- tion is to provide an example of how to practice the inven- tion in a particular case,” and that “[m]uch of the time, upon reading the specification in that context, it will be- come clear whether the patentee is setting out specific ex- amples of the invention . . . or whether the patentee instead intends for the claims and the embodiments in the specification to be strictly coextensive.” 415 F.3d at 1323; see also id. (citing Snow v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 121 U.S. 617, 630 (1887) (it was clear from the specification that there was “nothing in the context to indicate that the patentee contemplated any alternative” embodiment to the one presented)). Here, we find the specification’s repeated disclosure of a negative-pressure arrangement, coupled with the figures illustrating a negative-pressure air flow, describes the invention, not a mere example of the inven- tion. See also Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 450 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Although claims need not be limited to the preferred embodiment when the invention is more broadly described, neither do the claims enlarge what is patented beyond what the Case: 22-1318 Document: 44 Page: 12 Filed: 01/03/2023

inventor has described as the invention.” (internal quota- tion marks and citation omitted)). Third, Tippmann argues that the district court erred in relying on the ’047 patent’s prosecution history. Appel- lant’s Br. 28–43. We agree that statements regarding the specific limitations at issue in the ’047 patent’s prosecution history do not apply to the claims of the ’570 patent. Saun- ders Grp., Inc. v. Comfortrac, Inc., 492 F.3d 1326, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“When the purported disclaimers are di- rected to specific claim terms that have been omitted or materially altered in subsequent applications (rather than to the invention itself), those disclaimers do not apply.” (ci- tation omitted)). But the district court’s reliance on prose- cution history is harmless because we find that the ’570 patent’s specification clearly disavows a positive-pressure arrangement. We thus adopt the district court’s construction of “an air inlet and an air outlet” and “a fan positioned to direct the air into the airflow chamber from the air inlet and ex- haust air into the warehouse space through the air outlet.” II. Warehouse Term Tippmann also argues that the district court erred in construing the term “a warehouse defining a warehouse space set to a desired air temperature” to require a chiller located in the warehouse space. Appellant’s Br. 52–62. We find it unnecessary to address this argument, however, be- cause our construction of the ’570 patent’s Air Flow Terms as limited to a negative-pressure arrangement is sufficient to affirm the judgment below. See Claim Construction Or- der, 2021 WL 5236872, at *2 (“As Tippmann noted at oral argument, if the ’570 Patent was limited to a negative pres- sure system, ‘that would end our case.’” (citation omitted)). CONCLUSION We have considered Tippmann’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we Case: 22-1318 Document: 44 Page: 13 Filed: 01/03/2023

TIPPMANN ENGINEERING, LLC v. 13 INNOVATIVE REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS, INC.

adopt the district court’s construction of “an air inlet and an air outlet” and its construction of “a fan positioned to direct the air into the airflow chamber from the air inlet and exhaust air into the warehouse space through the air outlet,” and we affirm the district court’s judgment based thereon. AFFIRMED