Digest of Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc., No. 2014-1396 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2015) (precedential). On appeal from S.D. Cal. Before Lourie, Reyna, Moore.
Procedural Posture: Appeal from the district court grant of summary judgment that defendants Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin USA, Inc. did not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,101,843. CAFC affirmed.
- Claim Construction: The Federal Circuit construed the preamble of the asserted claim as limiting where the preamble terms “user” and “repetitive motion pacing system” provided antecedent basis for and were necessary to understand the positive limitations in the body of the claim and those depending from it.
- Claim Construction: The Federal Circuit found a clear and unmistakable statement of disavowal or disclaimer concerning the phrase “repetitive motion pacing system for pacing a user” where, in addition to a list of objects of the present invention, the specification further stated that “[t]hose [listed 19 objects] and other objects and features of the present invention are accomplished, as embodied and fully described herein, by a repetitive motion pacing system that includes . . . a data storage and playback device adapted to producing the sensible tempo.” In the context of the patent as a whole, the court perceived such a statement as not merely describing yet another object of the invention, but instead alerting the reader that the invention accomplishes all of its objects and features with a repetitive motion pacing system that includes a data storage and playback device adapted to produce a sensible tempo.
- Infringement: The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of noninfringement where the accused devices were not repetitive motion pacing devices that produced a sensible tempo as required by the asserted claim.