W.E. Hall Company, Inc. v. Atlanta Corrugating, LLC (Fed. Cir.)

June 7, 2004 on 12:47 pm | In Caselaw |

W.E. Hall Company, Inc. v. Atlanta Corrugating, LLC
(Note: 10+MB (*.doc) file from the court or a ~170K PDF I created for you)
Federal Circuit June 7, 2004
Before GAJARSA, LINN, and PROST, Circuit Judges
HOLDING: “W.E. Hall Company, Inc. (“Hall”), appeals the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granting the motion for summary judgment of Atlanta Corrugating, LLC (“Atlanta”) of noninfringement of United States Patent No. 4,838,317 (the “’317 patent”). W.E. Hall Co. v. Atlanta Corrugating, LLC, No. 1:01-CV-1261-JTC (N.D. Ga. Sept. 24, 2002). Because we find no error in the district court’s claim construction, we affirm the summary judgment of noninfringement.”

Here, the inventor was not his own lexicographer within the four corners of the intrinsic evidence. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. We therefore rely on the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms. The disputed terms are straightforward: “open channels” and “single piece construction.” The term “open” is defined as “[n]ot shut in or confined, not surrounded by barriers; to which there is free access or passage on all or nearly all sides; unenclosed, unwalled, unconfined.” 10 Oxford English Dictionary 835 (2d ed. 1989). “Single piece” is sufficiently clear to make even resort to the dictionary unnecessary. Neither party has argued the existence of a customary meaning in the art of metal pipe that contradicts these plain and ordinary meanings. Furthermore, nothing in the specification or the prosecution history clearly suggests that Hall intended to use the terms in a manner other than according to their ordinary meanings. The district court was therefore correct in its construction of the claims.

 Print This Post |  Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts: Post-Plugin Library missing