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.

Indratech, LLC v. Fibrix, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division

April 26, 2018

INDRATECH, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
FIBRIX, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER

          DAVID C. KEESLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff Indratech LLC's Motion For Reconsideration Of This Court's Claim Construction Order” (Document No. 45). The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and this motion is ripe for review. After careful consideration of the record, the briefs, and applicable authority, the undersigned will deny the motion.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Indratech, LLC, (“Plaintiff” or “Indratech”) initiated this action with the filing of its “Complaint & Jury Demand” (Document No. 1) (the “Complaint”) on September 30, 2016. The Complaint asserts that Defendant Fibrix, LLC (“Defendant” or “Fibrix”) has contributed to and continues to contribute to the infringement of United States Patent No. 9, 392, 877 (the “877 patent”), entitled “Turntable Spring Mattress and Method of Making Same, ” issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on July 19, 2016. (Document No. 1, pp.2-5). Patent ‘877 relates to the field of mattresses, particularly mattresses having innersprings or a spring core assembly. (Document No. 27, p.7). Plaintiff contends that Defendant's “customers directly infringe the ‘877 patent by using the Fibrix rail to manufacture, sell, offer to sell, or import mattresses comprising a spring core assembly with the fixed Fibrix rail around its perimeter.” (Document No. 1, p.5). “Defendant Fibrix, LLC's Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Counterclaim” (Document No. 15) was filed on December 5, 2016.

         On January 13, 2017, the parties filed their “Utility Patent Certificate Of Initial Attorneys' Conference” (Document No. 19) and “Joint Stipulation Of Consent To Exercise Jurisdiction By A U.S. Magistrate Judge” (Document No. 20). The Court issued the “Utility Patent Claim Construction Scheduling Order” (Document No. 21) on January 21, 2017.

         The parties' “Joint Claim Construction Statement” (Document No. 25) was filed July 3, 2017; “Plaintiff Indratech, LLC's Opening Claim Construction Brief” (Document No. 27) was filed August 14, 2017; “Defendant Fibrix, LLC's Responsive Claim Construction Brief” (Document No. 28) was filed August 28, 2017; “Plaintiff Indratech, LLC's Reply Claim Construction Brief” (Document No. 30) was filed September 4, 2017; and “Defendant Fibrix, LLC's Sur-Reply Claim Construction Brief” (Document No. 33) was filed September 13, 2017.

         Based on the parties' claim construction briefs, and the presentations by counsel at a claim construction hearing on December 12, 2017, the Court issued an “Order” (Document No. 42) on January 18, 2018, regarding the six (6) disputed terms in the underlying ‘877 patent.

         “Plaintiff Indratech LLC's Motion For Reconsideration Of This Court's Claim Construction Order” (Document No. 45) was filed on February 16, 2018. By the instant motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court issue a revised order regarding one of the disputed terms - “finding Term 3 (“increased spring rate…”) not to be indefinite.” (Document No. 45, p.1). “Defendant Fibrix, LLC's Response In Opposition To Motion For Reconsideration” (Document No. 48) was filed on March 2, 2018; and “Plaintiff's Reply Brief In Support Of Its Motion For Reconsideration Of This Court's Claim Construction Order” (Document No. 49) was filed on March 9, 2018.

         This matter is now ripe for review and disposition.

         LEGAL STANDARDS

         Claim construction is a matter of law, to be decided by the Court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 387-88 (1996). “The purpose of a Markman hearing is to ascertain the meaning of a patent's claims so that it is clear precisely what has been patented and, by consequence, the protections the patent therefore affords the patent holder.” Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Daw Industries, Inc., 2006 WL 462364 at *2 (S.D.Ohio, Feb. 22, 2006). Claims should be construed with a focus “on the objective test of what one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood the term to mean.” Markman, 52 F.3d 967, 986 (Fed.Cir. 1995). “Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d at 1313 (Fed.Cir. 2005).

         Plaintiff now asks the Court to revise its claim construction as to one (1) of the six (6) disputed terms pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). See (Document Nos. 42 and 45). Rule 54 provides in part that:

any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment ...

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.