Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Lakeside Plastics, Inc.

Federal Circuit

Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Lakeside Plastics, Inc.

276 F. App'x 972

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedApril 14, 2008

DocketNo. 2007-1482

StatusPublished

This text of 276 F. App'x 972 (Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Lakeside Plastics, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Lakeside Plastics, Inc., 276 F. App'x 972 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

It is ordered that the district court’s judgment is affirmed in all respects.

We note, however, that the district court improperly construed the term “knob” in U.S. Pat. No. 5,749,673 (“the ’673 patent”) to mean “a rounded protuberance capable of being gripped by an entire hand since the width of the rounded protuberance must be greater than the width of a shaft with sufficient length to permit all of the fingers of an average adult hand to be wrapped thereabout.” This construction was error. As the district court noted, “the purpose of the knob is primarily to prevent a user’s hand from slipping off of the end of the shaft.” ’673 patent col. 4, 11. 11-12. This does not mean that the knob must be large enough such that an average adult hand can be wrapped around the knob. All that is required is that the knob be large enough to keep a user’s hand from slipping off the end of the shaft. However, the district court’s erroneous claim construction does not affect its judgment of noninfringement.

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

ORDER

It is ordered that the district court’s judgment is affirmed in all respects.

We note, however, that the district court improperly construed the term “knob” in U.S. Pat. No. 5,749,673 (“the ’673 patent”) to mean “a rounded protuberance capable of being gripped by an entire hand since the width of the rounded protuberance must be greater than the width of a shaft with sufficient length to permit all of the fingers of an average adult hand to be wrapped thereabout.” This construction was error. As the district court noted, “the purpose of the knob is primarily to prevent a user’s hand from slipping off of the end of the shaft.” ’673 patent col. 4, 11. 11-12. This does not mean that the knob must be large enough such that an average adult hand can be wrapped around the knob. All that is required is that the knob be large enough to keep a user’s hand from slipping off the end of the shaft. However, the district court’s erroneous claim construction does not affect its judgment of noninfringement.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 F. App'x 972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/traffix-devices-inc-v-lakeside-plastics-inc-cafc-2008.