United States District Court, S.D. New York
Lumos Technology Co., LTD. Grace L. Pan Charles A. Weiss
Nicholas P. Chiara Leonie W. Huang Holland & Knight LLP
JEDMED Instrument Company: Darren M. Geliebter Eric J. Huang
Lombard & Geliebter LLP
OPINION AND ORDER
COTE, United States District Judge
Lumos Technology Co., LTD. (“Lumos”) alleges that
the defendant JEDMED Instrument Company
(“JEDMED”) infringed United States Patent No. 8,
746, 906 (“the ‘906 Patent”), entitled
“Light Source Module for Macro Photography.” The
parties have presented their proposed constructions of the
‘906 Patent's claims pursuant to Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The
following sets forth the Court's construction of disputed
parties dispute the construction of essentially four terms in
the preamble of Claim 1 and four terms that appear in the
body of Claim 1 and Claim 5. Lumos asserts that it is
unnecessary to construe the four terms in the preamble
because the preamble is non-limiting. The relevant claims,
with the disputed terms highlighted, are set forth below.
preamble of Claim 1 of the ‘906 Patent describes:
A light source module for macro photography, the light source
being configured for connecting to a lens of an image
capturing apparatus and bearing against a plane surface to
capture the image of the plane surface, the light source
The remainder of Claim 1 describes:
a barrel having a rear portion for connecting to the lens and
a front portion opposite to the rear portion; a contact unit
arranged on an end face of the front portion and having a
plurality of contact pads arranged at intervals on the end
face for contacting with the plane surface; and a lighting
unit arranged on the inner surface of the barrel.
of the ‘906 Patent describes (emphasis supplied):
“The light source module as claim 1, wherein the
contact pads are made of elastic material.”
is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a
patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled
the right to exclude.” Aventis Pharm. Inc. v. Amino
Chems. Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
(citation omitted). In construing a patent claim, which is a
question of law, courts “should look first to the
intrinsic evidence of record, i.e., the patent itself,
including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence,
the prosecution history.” Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am.
Honda Motor Co., Inc., 651 F.3d 1318, 1336 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (citation omitted). Courts, however, should not read
meaning into claim language that is clear on its face.
See Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural
Res., Inc., 279 F.3d 1357, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Claim
construction is not a backdoor process by which the scope of
a claim is narrowed or expanded. See Terlep v. Brinkmann
Corp., 418 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
terms are generally given their “ordinary and customary
meaning” as understood by a person of “ordinary
skill in the art at the time of invention.” Aylus
Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,856 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). The ordinary meaning of a
claim term is its meaning ...