Cellulose Material Solutions, LLC v. SC Marketing Group, Inc.

Background

Cellulose alleged that SC Marketing infringed U.S. Patent No. 11,078,007, which covers packaging insulation designed to protect perishable products during shipment. The patent describes a thermoplastic fibrous batt with thermoplastic film adhered to both sides. The insulation can be compressed and shipped flat, then expand and be folded for insertion into a packaging container. The disputed terms appeared in independent claims 1, 20, and 23.

The parties consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction. Judge Beeler held a claim-construction hearing on May 25, 2023. Claim construction is the court’s interpretation of the words and phrases in a patent claim, using the claim language, the patent specification, the prosecution history, and, when helpful, outside technical evidence.

Rulings on the disputed terms

“Uniform thickness”

The court rejected both parties’ proposed constructions. It declined Cellulose’s proposal because it essentially removed meaning from “uniform” and repeated the later limitation concerning folding without creases, grooves, or cut lines. It also rejected SC Marketing’s proposal that the insulation’s thickness must remain the same “in all cases and at all times,” because the record showed that some variability was necessary. The court gave the term its plain and ordinary meaning and held that it was not indefinite. The court reasoned that the surrounding claim language informed a skilled person about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.

“Resiliently compressible” and “resiliently expand”

The court construed both terms as “returns to the original form after being compressed.” It relied on the patent’s description that the insulation expands back to at least near its original thickness after being unpacked, as well as the prosecution history distinguishing material that would remain permanently compressed. The court also held that the terms were not indefinite because the claims, read in light of the specification, informed skilled persons about the invention’s scope with reasonable certainty.

“Fibrous batt comprised primarily”

The court construed the term as “a batt comprised primarily of [thermoplastic or PET] fibers.” It rejected SC Marketing’s argument that the term excluded a batt made entirely of thermoplastic or PET fibers. The court stated that the patent treated the relevant materials as thermoplastic or PET fibers and did not suggest excluding batts composed only of those fibers. It also concluded that the parties’ proposed alternatives—“chiefly/essentially” and “mostly”—did not add anything to the ordinary meaning of “primarily.”

“Folded without the need for creases, grooves or cut lines” and “foldable”

The court gave both terms their plain and ordinary meanings. It rejected SC Marketing’s proposed additions concerning hinges and the laminate’s return to its original form because those additions were confusing, repeated claim language, and would not help a jury understand the terms as used by a person having ordinary skill in the art. The court found the patent language clear in context.

“Air laid thermoplastic fibrous batt”

The court construed the term as “A batt comprising thermoplastic fibers, where the batt is formed using airlaying.” It rejected SC Marketing’s proposed exclusion of “rigid PET waddings.” The court concluded that statements by Cellulose’s inventor during patent prosecution did not clearly disclaim or exclude that feature. In the court’s view, the statements described the earlier patent and the parties’ business relationship rather than clearly limiting the scope of the ’007 patent.

Disposition

The order construed the disputed patent terms as stated above and resolved ECF Nos. 32, 47, 49, and 50. The opinion does not decide whether SC Marketing infringed the patent or whether the patent is valid; it interprets the claim language for use in the case.