Digest of TMI Prods., Inc. v. Rosen Entertainment Sys., L.P., No. 2014-1553 (Fed. Cir. April 2, 2015) (non-precedential). On appeal from C.D. Cal. Before Lourie, Bryson, and Chen.

Procedural Posture: Plaintiff-Appellant-TMI appealed the district court’s construction of claim terms and corresponding grant of summary judgment of noninfringement. CAFC affirmed.

  • Claim Construction: The district court correctly construed the term “the housing is structured to permit selective access to the input opening” to require that “the housing is structured to be capable of moving between an accessible and inaccessible orientation.” The district court’s construction gives meaning to all terms of the claim and does not create redundancies in the claim language. TMI also argued that the district court construed the claims of its patent so narrowly it excluded several figures in the patent application. However, contrary to TMI’s argument, the drafter’s intent with respect to the original claims, without further evidence, does not inform the construction of the claim at-issue. Also none of the statements in the prosecution history rise to the level of a clear disavowal of claim scope or otherwise support a departure from the claim language and the written description. TMI did not contend that Rosen infringes under the district court’s construction.