Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lumos Technology Co., Ltd. v. Jedmed Instrument Co.

United States District Court, S.D. New York

August 4, 2017

LUMOS TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., Plaintiff,
v.
JEDMED INSTRUMENT COMPANY, Defendant.

          For Lumos Technology Co., LTD. Grace L. Pan Charles A. Weiss Nicholas P. Chiara Leonie W. Huang Holland & Knight LLP

          For JEDMED Instrument Company: Darren M. Geliebter Eric J. Huang Lombard & Geliebter LLP

          OPINION AND ORDER

          DENISE COTE, United States District Judge

         Plaintiff 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 terms.

         BACKGROUND

         The 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.

         The 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 module comprising:[1]
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.

         Claim 5 of the ‘906 Patent describes (emphasis supplied): “The light source module as claim 1, wherein the contact pads are made of elastic material.”

         DISCUSSION

         “It 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).

         Claim 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.