FullView, Inc. v. Polycom, Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:18-cv-00510
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 12
In FullView v. Polycom, Judge Chen ruled that “inner volume” means space bounded by the pyramid, while deferring construction of another term.
FullView, Inc. and Polycom, Inc.; the ruling sets the interpretation of a disputed term in the patent-infringement litigation.
What happened
FullView, Inc. v. Polycom, Inc. concerns FullView’s accusation that Polycom infringed claims 10 through 12 of a patent involving panoramic viewers for videoconferencing devices. The parties asked the court to interpret two patent terms.
The parties offered competing meanings for “pyramid shaped element” and “inner volume.” They largely agreed that the pyramid-shaped element must be a single connected object, but disagreed about whether fasteners could connect its reflective sides. They also disagreed about whether “inner volume” meant all space inside the pyramid or only a non-peripheral area.
Judge Edward M. Chen construed “inner volume [of the pyramid shaped element]” to mean “inside the space defined and bounded by the pyramid shaped element.” The parties agreed to meet and provide an updated construction for “pyramid shaped element”; the court said it would construe that term later if they could not agree.
The detailed version
- FullView, Inc. v. Polycom, Inc. · No. 3:18-cv-00510
- Edward Chen
- Apr. 5, 2021
Background
FullView, the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,128,143 and 6,700,711, accused Polycom of infringement. The ’143 Patent concerns panoramic viewers for videoconferencing devices. The court stated that only claims 10 through 12 of the ’143 Patent remained in dispute after it dismissed Polycom-related claims involving the ’711 Patent.
The parties appeared for a claim-construction hearing on March 23, 2021. Claim construction is the court’s interpretation of the meaning and scope of patent claims. The court generally relies first on the patent’s claims, written description, and prosecution history, and may also consider outside evidence such as dictionaries and expert testimony.
“Pyramid shaped element”
The parties asked the court to interpret “pyramid shaped element,” which appears in claims 10 and 11. FullView proposed “a unitary object shaped like a pyramid, except that its apex and base may be absent or incomplete.” Polycom proposed an object shaped like a polyhedron with three or more sides, with the apex and base possibly absent or incomplete.
At the hearing, Polycom indicated that it could use “pyramid” rather than “polyhedron” if the construction allowed shapes that deviated from a perfect geometric pyramid. FullView explained that “unitary” meant a single pyramid-shaped element whose reflective side facets touch or abut one another, excluding free-floating mirror panels. Polycom agreed that the element was a single object and excluded free-floating panels, but said fasteners could connect facets without the facets technically touching.
The court expressed concern that “unitary” was not used in the ’143 Patent and could be misunderstood as an additional claim limitation. Because the parties had substantial common ground, the court directed them to meet and confer and provide an updated joint construction before the next status conference. The court stated that it would construe the term at that time if the parties could not agree. The order therefore did not adopt a final construction for “pyramid shaped element.”
“Inner volume”
The parties also disputed “inner volume [of the pyramid shaped element]” in claim 10. FullView proposed “non-peripheral volume.” Polycom proposed “inside the space defined and bounded by the pyramid shaped element.” The court chose to construe the entire phrase because the volume of an object depends on its three-dimensional shape.
FullView argued that the pyramid had separate peripheral and inner areas and that a support member had to enter the non-peripheral area, such as the core or vertex. FullView relied substantially on Figure 17 of the patent. Polycom argued that “inner volume” meant the entire space within the pyramid and that a support member only needed to have a portion inside that space.
The court rejected FullView’s proposed “non-peripheral volume” construction because the patent’s specification and prosecution history did not identify where inner volume ended and peripheral volume began. The court also found that Figure 17 did not show a clear intent to limit the claim to that particular embodiment. During prosecution, FullView had distinguished prior art involving support members that merely touched or abutted the pyramid, but had not defined “inner volume.”
The court also considered the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s earlier interpretation that intersecting an inner volume requires the support member to pass through space defined and bounded by the reflective element. The court concluded that this interpretation was consistent with the claim language and the patent’s intrinsic evidence.
Holding and disposition
The court construed “inner volume [of the pyramid shaped element]” to mean “inside the space defined and bounded by the pyramid shaped element.” It concluded that this construction did not improperly limit the claim to a preferred embodiment and did not make the claim indefinite. The court did not issue a final construction for “pyramid shaped element” in this order; the parties were to submit an updated construction after meeting and conferring.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.