CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation, 288 F.3d 1359 (2002) Notes

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Revision as of 11:22, 25 March 2011 by Sbonomo (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

elliptical fitness device, appeals court

District court said CCS didnt specify reciprocating "member" as having more than one straight component. thus Life Fitness did not infringe on patent.

said not mentioned in claims, and drawings only show single member

CCS says the word member covers curved thing that Life was using, Life says term is too vague, can't claim curved member


  • 2-step analysis
    • 1. determine scope of disputed term
    • 2. compare claim to accused device

to interpret claim:

  • intrinsic, extrinsic evidence

word can lose its ordinary meaning if

  • patentee makes own definition stated
  • embodiment distinguishes term
  • patentees term deprives claimof clarity

appeals court says DC misinterpreted the term reciprocating member.

it can contain the curved member based on dictionary definition, intrinsic evidence