Willis Electric Co., Ltd. v. Polygroup Limited

Background

Willis Electric sued Polygroup for allegedly infringing five United States patents involving pre-lit artificial holiday trees. Four patents concern Willis Electric’s “One Plug Tree” design, and the fifth, U.S. Patent No. 9,066,617, concerns a multi-positional locking artificial tree trunk. After inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Willis Electric proceeded on specified claims of those five patents. The parties disputed the meaning and scope of ten claim terms. Claim construction is the court’s process for determining what patent claims mean before a fact finder compares those claims with the accused products.

One Plug Tree Patents

The court resolved five groups of terms appearing in the One Plug Tree patents:

- “Coupling,” “coupled,” and “configured to couple.” The court held that these terms have their plain and ordinary meanings and require no construction. It rejected Polygroup’s effort to add requirements that the terms refer expressly to two trunk portions or bodies and that those portions “securely fit together.” - Electrical connection independent of rotational orientation. The court rejected Polygroup’s proposed requirement that the electrical connection remain uninterrupted if the trunk portions are rotated after connection. It adopted Willis Electric’s proposed construction: “an electrical connection that can be made at any available arrangement of the first tree/trunk portion relative to the second tree/trunk portion about a common vertical axis between the tree-trunk portions.” The court explained that the claim language concerns making the connection, not maintaining it during later rotation. - “Coaxial trunk connectors.” The court adopted Willis Electric’s proposed construction: “connectors capable of making an electrical connection between trunk sections and that include a set of electrical contacts that permit the electrical connection to be made about a common vertical axis of the trunk sections.” It rejected Polygroup’s proposed additional requirement that the connection be possible at any rotational orientation. - “Coaxial electrical contact set.” The court adopted Polygroup’s proposed construction: “a set of electrical contacts that share a common vertical axis.” The court relied on the ordinary meaning of “coaxial” and the patent specification’s description and illustrations. - “Trunk electrical connector,” “trunk connector,” and “trunk connector assembly.” The court concluded that these terms share the same meaning and construed them, as modified from Willis Electric’s proposal, to mean “an assembly that is capable of making an electrical connection between trunk/tree portions.” It rejected both Willis Electric’s proposed location requirement and Polygroup’s proposed requirement of a non-conductive body enclosing a pair of electrical contacts. - “Plug” and “plug insertable into the trunk body.” The court rejected Polygroup’s proposed requirement of a compression or interference fit. It adopted Willis Electric’s proposal as modified, construing the terms to mean “a non-conductive mechanical structure securely positioning an electrical contact set within a trunk body.”

The ’617 Patent

The court resolved five groups of terms in the patent covering the multi-positional locking artificial tree trunk:

- “Multi-positional interlocking artificial tree assembly.” The court held that the preamble to claim 1 is limiting, meaning it helps define the scope of the claim. It rejected Polygroup’s proposed requirements of exactly two trunk portions, an already-assembled tree, and prevention of all rotation. It adopted Willis Electric’s construction, defining the term as “an artificial tree having two or more trunk portions configured to mechanically couple together in multiple orientations around a common axis, and the multiple trunk portions have limited rotational movement about the common axis when coupled in any of the multiple orientations.” - “Coupling mechanism.” The court rejected in part and adopted in part both parties’ proposed constructions, with modifications. It construed the term to mean “a substantially sleeve-shaped or plug-shaped hollow structure for joining two trunk portions, whose outer surface is configured to fit inside a first trunk portion and whose inner surface is shaped to fit with an insertable portion at the end of the second trunk portion body, such that the trunk portions have limited rotational movement relative to one another about a common axis.” - “Insertable portion.” The court held that this term has its plain and ordinary meaning and requires no construction. It rejected Polygroup’s more detailed proposed definition as unnecessary. - “Plurality of recesses.” The court held that this term also has its plain and ordinary meaning and requires no construction. It rejected Polygroup’s proposal to limit recesses to areas between rib-like projections. - “The lip and the terminal end are both exposed.” The court construed “exposed” to mean “visible and/or not covered.” It rejected Polygroup’s proposal that the lip and terminal end must be exposed when the trunk portions are coupled. The court adopted Willis Electric’s proposal as modified, construing the phrase to mean “the terminal end and the lip are visible and/or not covered when the second trunk portion is not coupled to the first trunk portion.”

Disposition

The court ordered that the disputed terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 8,454,186, 8,454,187, 8,936,379, 8,974,072, and 9,066,617 be construed as set out in the order. The order decided claim meaning and scope; it did not decide whether Polygroup infringed the patents.

Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright signed the order on December 6, 2021.