Pulling the Cord on Unstated Claims Limitations

Written by: Charles J. Sirek and Jacob R. Rosenbaum

IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC.

Before Lourie, Linn, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Summary: The district court erred in construing the term “pull cord” as a directly pulled cord that lacks a handle.

IQRIS Technologies LLC sued Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. and National Molding, LLC alleging infringement of two of IQRIS’s patents for tactical vests.  The district court construed the claim term “pull cord” to mean cords directly pulled by a user that lack a handle.  Point Blank and National Molding moved for summary judgment of noninfringement.  The district court granted the motion because the accused product lacked a “pull cord” under the court’s definition of the term.  IQRIS appealed, arguing that the district court erred in its construction of “pull cord.”

The Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in construing “pull cord.”  The Federal Circuit ruled that “pull cord” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning because the claim language did not limit who or what pulls the pull cord, and because the specification did not explicitly redefine the term or disavow the full scope of the term.  The court held that the specification did not disclaim pull cords with handles by disparaging prior art devices with handles because that prior art was criticized for an unrelated reason, not because it had handles.  The Federal Circuit therefore vacated the grant of summary judgment and remanded for further consideration.

Editor: Sean Murray