Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc v. Oz-Post International, LLC

Background

Simpson and Oz-Post International, LLC, doing business as OZCO Building Products, are competing companies that design and manufacture connectors and anchors for the construction industry. The case originally involved claims concerning Oz-Post’s U.S. Patent No. 9,957,998 and U.S. Design Patent No. D798,701. The court had previously construed terms from the ’998 Patent and had granted Simpson partial summary judgment. The court later allowed two patents issued in December 2019—the ’007 Patent and the D’545 Patent—to be added to the case. This order addressed the parties’ disputes about terms in those two patents.

Agreed Terms

The court adopted the parties’ agreed constructions for these terms:

- “annular surface”: “a ring-shaped surface between two circles”; - “cap”: “a closed cover”; - “disposed radially”: “extending uniformly from and perpendicular to a straight line running through the center of the washer/nut member”; - “flange portion”: “a projecting edge”; - “plurality”: “two or more”; and - “cap,” “screw,” and “nut-and-washer member”: those are separate elements.

The ’007 Patent

The court ruled that the preambles—the introductory portions of claims—were not limiting for claims 1, 6, and 12. It accepted Simpson’s proposed “preamble-within-a-preamble” structure for those claims, meaning the introductory language describing a decorative hardware assembly and a nut-and-washer connector or member provided context rather than additional claim requirements. For claim 8, a method claim, the court treated “A method of simulating an architectural hardware installation, comprising:” as the preamble. The term “nut-and-washer member” in that claim was not a separate limitation.

The court gave “disposed within” and its related phrases their plain and ordinary meaning rather than adopting Simpson’s proposed meaning, “situated entirely within.” This applied to “disposed within the intermediate cylindrical surface” in claims 1 and 12, “disposed within the first circular opening” in claims 6 and 8, and “disposed within” generally in claims 1, 6, 8, and 12. The court concluded that the ’007 Patent’s claim language, including the absence of “substantially flush” from its independent claims and the references to circular openings, did not support importing the earlier construction from the ’998 Patent.

For “substantially flush” in claims 5 and 11, the court also adopted the plain and ordinary meaning. It declined both parties’ proposed constructions because they would not meaningfully help the fact finder and could create an unnecessary inconsistency with the ’998 Patent.

The D’545 Patent

For the design-patent claim covering “the ornamental design for a threaded connector, as shown and described,” the court adopted Oz-Post’s proposed construction. The construction states: “The ornamental design for a threaded connector, as shown and described in Figures 1-5. The threaded connector is shown with a symbolic break in its length. The broken lines and the appearance of any portion of the article between the break lines forms no part of the claimed design.”

The court declined to add Simpson’s longer description, concluding that it placed undue emphasis on one aspect of the design. The court also rejected Simpson’s request for an order preventing Oz-Post from arguing that the D’545 Patent claimed anything other than a threaded connection between the cap and washer/nut member. The court said Simpson could question Oz-Post’s experts about that issue.

Ruling

Judge William H. Orrick issued the listed claim constructions and ordered that they govern the disputed terms addressed in the order. The order construed the terms; it did not enter a final judgment on patent infringement or invalidity.