Noble Security, Inc. v. Acco Brands Corporation

Background

Meir Avganim designed and patented a security slot and lock for laptops and other portable electronic devices, and licensed related patents to Noble Security, Inc. Noble and Avganim sued ACCO Brands Corporation for allegedly infringing four patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,137,911, 9,549,476, 9,624,697, and 9,784,019. ACCO asserted counterclaims alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,842,422 and 10,031,558.

The opinion concerns claim construction, the court’s interpretation of patent-claim language. After a hearing under Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., the parties asked the court to construe disputed terms in Noble’s ’697 Patent and ACCO’s ’422 and ’558 Patents.

Court’s Analysis

For Noble’s ’697 Patent, the court rejected ACCO’s proposed interpretation of “moveable pin” as limited to a slidable locking element that moves straight into and out of the cavity. The court concluded that the patent did not disclaim non-sliding or rotating movement for the claimed moveable pin. Because rejecting ACCO’s construction resolved the current dispute, the court declined to adopt Noble’s alternative construction and declined to construe “moveable pin” further. For the same reasons, it rejected ACCO’s proposed construction of “selectively moveable in a first direction and in an opposite second direction” and declined to construe that term.

The court also declined to construe “complementary,” finding it commonly understood and self-explanatory, and declined to construe “computer” because the parties’ submissions showed no present dispute requiring a ruling.

For ACCO’s ’422 and ’558 Patents, the court rejected Noble’s argument that “engagement element” should be treated as a means-plus-function element under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). That provision applies special rules when a claim describes an element by its function without sufficiently definite structure. The court found that the claims and specifications describe enough structure: the engagement element extends from the body or base, is inserted into an aperture, and engages a protrusion or part of the portable electronic device. The court therefore rejected Noble’s proposed construction and did not adopt ACCO’s proposed construction because it added little beyond the existing claim language.

The court likewise rejected Noble’s proposed construction of “stabilizing element” as requiring inhibition of rotation. The court found that the claim language instead describes an element fixed to the body to inhibit movement of the head relative to the lock interface member. The court declined to adopt ACCO’s proposed construction because it did not clarify the term beyond the claim language.

The court declined to construe “the engagement element being movable relative to the body while inserted in the aperture to engage the protrusion” because Noble had not shown that its proposed wording was necessary or would resolve a dispute. It also rejected Noble’s proposal that “with the engagement element” means insertion at the same time, noting that the patent’s embodiments include insertion before, at the same time as, and after the engagement element. The court found no adequate basis for reading a narrower meaning into the term and declined to construe it.

For “protrusion,” the court rejected Noble’s proposed definition and declined to provide a further construction. The court found that the term has a sufficiently clear, nontechnical meaning and can describe various shapes, including bumps, plates, cylinders, and pyramids. It also rejected Noble’s argument that “protrusion” is merely intended use rather than a structural claim limitation. The court concluded that “protrusion” is a limitation of the ’422 Patent. For related reasons, it concluded that “aperture” is a claim limitation of both the ’422 and ’558 Patents.

The court declined to construe “wedge-shaped engagement portion,” finding that Noble’s proposed dictionary-based definition was not workable and that ACCO had provided no affirmative support for its proposed construction. Finally, the court concluded that “lock interface member” and “portable electronic device” in claim 17 of the ’422 Patent are claim limitations, rejecting Noble’s argument that they were merely statements of intended use.

Disposition and Effect

The court’s conclusion states that it declined to construe the disputed terms of the ’697, ’422, and ’558 Patents. It further concluded that “protrusion,” “lock interface member,” and “portable electronic device” are claim limitations of the ’422 Patent, and that “aperture” is a claim limitation of the ’422 and ’558 Patents. The opinion did not decide whether either party infringed the patents. The court scheduled a later telephone conference for January 14, 2022.

Judge Paul G. Gardephe signed the memorandum opinion and order.