Ultravision Technologies, LLC v. Govision, LLC

Case: 22-1098 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 02/23/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
GOVISION, LLC
Defendant
SHENZHEN ABSEN OPTOELECTRONIC CO., LTD.,
ABSEN, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2022-1098
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:18-cv-00100-JRG-RSP,
2:18-cv-00112-JRG-RSP, Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.
______________________
Decided: February 23, 2023
______________________
ALFRED ROSS FABRICANT, Fabricant LLP, Rye, NY, ar-
gued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by PETER
LAMBRIANAKOS, JOSEPH M. MERCADANTE, VINCENT J.
RUBINO, III.
KEVIN PAUL MARTIN, Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston,
Case: 22-1098 Document: 42 Page: 2 Filed: 02/23/2023
2 ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOVISION, LLC
MA, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by
JORDAN BOCK, SRIKANTH K. REDDY; NAOMI BIRBACH, New
York, NY; PATRICK MCCARTHY, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before PROST, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
PROST, Circuit Judge.
Ultravision Technologies, LLC (“Ultravision”) sued
Shenzhen Absen Optoelectronic Co., Ltd. and Absen Inc.
(collectively, “Absen” or “Appellees”) for patent infringe-
ment. After claim construction, Ultravision stipulated to
noninfringement of claims 14 and 15 of U.S. Patent
No. 9,047,791 (“the ’791 patent”) and claims 15 and 17 of
U.S. Patent No. 9,666,105 (“the ’105 patent”). 1 A jury later
returned a verdict of noninfringement and invalidity of
claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 9,916,782 (“the ’782 patent”).
The district court subsequently denied Ultravision’s mo-
tion for a new trial based on the ’782 patent claim construc-
tion. Ultravision appeals, arguing that the stipulated
judgment and the judgment entered based on the jury’s
verdict should be overturned based on two claim-construc-
tion errors. Because the district court correctly construed
both claim terms, we affirm the final judgment.
1 Ultravision also stipulated to noninfringement of
claims 12–13 and 19–20 of the ’791 patent, J.A. 102, but
those claims are no longer at issue here because we af-
firmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) un-
patentability determinations on those claims. Ultravision
Techs., LLC v. Glux Visual Effects Tech (Shenzhen) Co.,
No. 2022-1344, 2023 WL 177691, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13,
2023).
Case: 22-1098 Document: 42 Page: 3 Filed: 02/23/2023
ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOVISION, LLC 3
BACKGROUND
I
Claim 9 of the ’782 patent, which depends from claim
1, was the only claim asserted at trial and is therefore the
only claim at issue here. However, the only challenged
term, “waterproof,” appears in claim 1. Claim 1 of the
’782 patent recites in relevant part: “wherein the modular
display panel is sealed to be waterproof.” ’782 patent claim
1 (emphasis added).
At the district court, Ultravision argued that “water-
proof” means “preventing water from entering the interior
of the panel when exposed to weather,” and Absen argued
that it means “preventing water from entering (the panel).”
Ultravision Techs., LLC v. Govision LLC, No. 2:18-cv-
00100-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 12570811, at *9–10 (E.D. Tex.
Sept. 30, 2020) (“Claim Construction Order”). Absen also
argued that Ultravision’s construction rendered the claims
indefinite. Id. After considering the parties’ arguments,
the district court ultimately construed “waterproof” as “in-
gress protection (IP) rating of IP 65 or higher.” Id. at *12.
Under this “rating of IP 65 or higher” construction, the
jury returned a verdict of noninfringement and invalidity
of claim 9. J.A. 5137–38. The district court entered judg-
ment according to the verdict, J.A. 101–02, and denied Ul-
travision’s motion for a new trial, J.A. 100.
II
The ’791 and ’105 patents, also related to display mod-
ules, claim modification kits to convert existing signs into
electronic signs. Ultravision stipulated to noninfringement
of claims 14 and 15 of the ’791 patent and claims 15 and 17
of the ’105 patent based on the construction of “display
module.” Ultravision agrees that claim 12 of the
Case: 22-1098 Document: 42 Page: 4 Filed: 02/23/2023
4 ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOVISION, LLC
’791 patent, which claims 14 and 15 depend from, is exem-
plary for purposes of this claim construction dispute 2:
A modification kit for converting an existing sign-
age mounting structure to an electronic sign com-
prising:
a plurality of display modules;
a plurality of sign sections each having a front por-
tion and a rear portion, the front portion defining
at least two vertical columns of bays that span and
define a height of the sign, each bay configured to
receive one of the display modules, the rear portion
configured to be attached to a beam surface of the
existing signage structure to allow most of a rear
surface of the rear portion to be exposed for servic-
ing; and
a plurality of power routing systems each including
at least one node associated with each sign section
with a plurality of individual power extensions
each extending from one node to one of the bays.
’791 patent claim 12 (emphasis added).
Ultravision argued to the district court that the claim
term “display module” should be given its plain and ordi-
nary meaning. Claim Construction Order, 2020 WL
12570811, at *31. Absen argued that it should be con-
strued to mean “a sealed display module having a pair of
LED panels operatively coupled to a daughter board.” Id.The district court adopted Absen’s construction in part,
construing the term to mean “module having a pair of LED
2 We cite to the ’791 patent throughout because Ul-
travision has not separately argued or suggested that any
distinction from the ’105 patent impacts the construction of
“display module.”
Case: 22-1098 Document: 42 Page: 5 Filed: 02/23/2023
ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOVISION, LLC 5
display panels operatively coupled to a daughter board.”
Id. at *33
Ultravision stipulated to noninfringement of claims 14
and 15 of the ’791 patent and claims 15 and 17 of the
’105 patent under this construction of “display module”
and, after the jury trial on the ’782 patent, the district court
entered final judgment accordingly. J.A. 102.
III
Ultravision appeals the final judgment as it relates to
the ’791, ’105, and ’782 patents. 3 It bases this challenge
only on its contention that the claim constructions of “wa-
terproof” and “display modules” were erroneous. Ul-
travision also challenges the denial of its motion for a new
trial on the ’782 patent. That challenge rests on its claim
construction argument and its position that the district
court erroneously found that Ultravision was not preju-
diced by the construction because it concluded that the re-
sult would have been the same under Ultravision’s
proposed construction.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
DISCUSSION
In general, claim terms are construed based on their
ordinary meaning to a person of skill in the art who has
read the entire specification and all the claims. Phillips v.
3 Ultravision also appealed the “waterproof” con-
struction as it related to claim 22 of U.S. Patent
No. 9,978,294—the jury also returned a verdict of nonin-
fringement and invalidity on that claim—but we have since
affirmed the Board’s determination that claim 22 of the
’294 patent is unpatentable. See Ultravision Techs., LLC
v. Glux Visual Effects Tech (Shenzhen) Co., No. 2022-1342,
2023 WL 177689, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2023). Thus, that
aspect of the appeal is now moot.
Case: 22-1098 Document: 42 Page: 6 Filed: 02/23/2023
6 ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOVISION, LLC
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
The specification may also indicate, either expressly or by
implication, that the patentee uniquely defined a claim
term. Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d
1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further, the specification’s
emphasis of a particular feature’s importance to the inven-
tion can indicate “what the patentee had claimed and dis-
claimed.” See SafeTCare Mfg., Inc. v. Tele-Made, Inc., 497
F.3d 1262, 1269–70 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In addition, the pros-
ecution history sheds light on a term’s meaning because it
“provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor under-
stood the patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. “We review
claim construction based on intrinsic evidence de novo and
review any findings of fact regarding extrinsic evidence for
clear error.” SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Amazon.com, 998 F.3d
1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citing Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.
v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 331–32 (2015)).
I
First, we address the construction of “waterproof” as it
relates to claim 9 of the ’782 patent. For the reasons below,
we agree with the district court’s construction: “ingress
protection (IP) rating of IP 65 or higher.” As a result, we
affirm the final judgment of invalidity and noninfringe-
ment of claim 9. We likewise affirm the district court’s de-
nial of Ultravision’s motion for a new trial. Because the
claim construction is correct, we need not (and do not)
reach the issue of whether the district court was correct
that Ultravision was not prejudiced by the construction.
The ’782 specification uses “waterproof” as a term of
degree. See, e.g., ’782 patent col. 4 ll. 65–66 (“These panels
are completely waterproof against submersion in up to 3
feet of water.” (emphasis added)). And it repeatedly uses
ingress protection (“IP”) ratings to describe the degree of
Case: 22-1098 Document: 42 Page: 7 Filed: 02/23/2023
ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOVISION, LLC 7
protection from water. 4 ’782 patent col. 7 ll. 42–52 (“In the
present example, the housing 220 is sealed to prevent wa-
ter from entering the housing. For example, the housing
220 may be sealed to have an ingress protection (IP) rating
such as IP 67, which defines a level of protection against
both solid particles and liquid. . . . In other embodiments,
the housing may be sealed to have an IP rating of IP 65 or
higher, e.g. IP 65, IP 66, IP 67, or IP 68.”); id. at col 4 l. 61–
col. 5 l. 3 (“In certain embodiments, the display is IP 67
rated and therefore waterproof and corrosion re-
sistant. . . . In lower-cost embodiments where weather-
proofing is not as significant, the panels can have an IP 65
or IP 66 rating.”). An IP rating of 65 is the lowest value
discussed as providing protection from water; it is the low-
est IP rating mentioned in the specification.
The district court based its construction on an evalua-
tion of the intrinsic record and relevant prosecution his-
tory. Further, the court reasoned that Ultravision’s
proposed construction, preventing water from entering the
interior of the panel when exposed to weather, “would
change the claim requirement of ‘waterproof’ to ‘weather-
proof’” and it “would not provide any bounds for the scope
of the claims.” Claim Construction Order, 2020 WL
12570811, at *11. As for Absen’s proposed construction,
preventing water from entering (the panel), the district
court rejected it because it “require[s] levels of protection
against every possible condition, including conditions that
the panels would never be expected to operate in,” which
was inconsistent with the specification’s description of “dif-
ferent levels of waterproof protection.” Id. at *12.
The intrinsic record supports the district court’s con-
struction. As noted above, the specification discusses
4 Everyone agrees that IP ratings are standard rat-
ings that reflect resistance to water and dust. Appellant’s
Br. 14 n.5; Appellees’ Br. 7.
Case: 22-1098 Document: 42 Page: 8 Filed: 02/23/2023
8 ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOVISION, LLC
“waterproof” as varying in degree and consistently uses IP
ratings of 65 or higher to describe the level of protection
from water. Further, during prosecution the patentee ex-
plained that the clause “when the panel is immersed in wa-
ter,” which appeared in a subsequently amended claim,
“describes the degree to which the panel is ‘sealed to be wa-
terproof.’” J.A. 3502. That clause was then amended to
“the panel compris[es] an ingress protection (IP) rating of
IP 67 or IP 68”—indicating that the patentee also under-
stood “waterproof” to vary in degree and that IP ratings de-
scribe that degree. J.A. 3502–03. Thus, the construction
of “waterproof” as “ingress protection (IP) rating of IP 65 or
higher” appropriately captures the term’s meaning as used
in the ’782 patent.
Ultravision’s arguments to the contrary are unpersua-
sive.
First, Ultravision relies on the doctrine of claim differ-
entiation to argue that claim 6’s recitation of “wherein the
modular display panel comprises an ingress protection (IP)
rating of IP 65, IP 66, IP 67, or IP 68” precludes a construc-
tion where IP ratings are present in the independent claim
by virtue of the “waterproof” construction. But the con-
struction does not render the scope of claim 6 and the scope
of claim 1 equivalent. Instead, the construction of IP 65 or
higher also includes an IP rating of 69, a value not claimed
in claim 6. Thus, claim 6 has a narrower scope than claim
1 even under the challenged construction. Since the claim
construction does not generate any redundancy, the doc-
trine of claim differentiation does not apply here. See Ap-
ple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1238 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (“This court has declined to apply the doctrine of
claim differentiation where the claims are not otherwise
identical in scope.” (cleaned up)).
We are further unpersuaded by Ultravision’s related
argument that claim differentiation applies because IP 69
can’t be included in the construction of “waterproof.” The
Case: 22-1098 Document: 42 Page: 9 Filed: 02/23/2023
ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOVISION, LLC 9
specification’s failure, however, to explicitly call out an IP
rating of 69 here doesn’t serve to exclude it from the mean-
ing of “waterproof.” The specification emphasizes the de-
sirability of protecting displays from water and an IP
rating of 69 would provide protection from water under
more conditions.
Regardless, “[c]laim differentiation is a guide, not a
rigid rule,” and does not alter a construction otherwise
compelled by the intrinsic record. Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Ap-
ple Inc., 830 F.3d 1374, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As discussed
above, the intrinsic record here indicates that the scope the
patentee ascribed to the relative term “waterproof” is an IP
rating of 65 or higher. That the patentee also decided to
specifically claim a particular subset of IP values—i.e., in-
dicate the degree of waterproofing with more particular-
ity—in claim 6 does not overcome that conclusion in these
circumstances.
Next, Ultravision argues that the construction is incor-
rect because “waterproof” is never expressly defined as “IP
65 or higher” in the specification. Appellant’s Br. 30–32.
This argument misses the point: “waterproof” must be con-
strued based on consideration of the claims and the speci-
fication as a whole. The specification did not need to, itself,
provide an explicit definition; the context and use of “wa-
terproof” in the claims and specification overall support the
construction reached. See Trs. of Columbia Univ., 811 F.3d
at 1363 (rejecting an argument that explicit redefinition is
required and noting that “[t]he only meaning that matters
in claim construction is the meaning in the context of the
patent.”).
Ultravision’s argument that the district court improp-
erly relied on the prosecution history because the pa-
tentee’s statements don’t amount to clear and
unmistakable disclaimer is similarly unpersuasive. Appel-
lant’s Br. 32. The prosecution history is relevant for more
than an evaluation of disclaimer—it provides additional
Case: 22-1098 Document: 42 Page: 10 Filed: 02/23/2023
10 ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOVISION, LLC
context for evaluating how the term would be understood
and how it was used in the patent. Iridescent Networks,
Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 933 F.3d 1345, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
2019) (rejecting a similar argument when construing “high
quality of service connection” because “where there is no
clear ordinary and customary meaning of a coined term of
degree, we may look to the prosecution history for guidance
without having to first find a clear and unmistakable disa-
vowal.”). Here, the patentee’s discussion of “the degree to
which the panel is ‘sealed to be waterproof’” during prose-
cution, J.A. 3502, only bolsters the district court’s conclu-
sion about the meaning of “waterproof” based on the
specification itself.
Finally, we need not look to extrinsic evidence here be-
cause the intrinsic record well supports the claim construc-
tion of “waterproof.” Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v.
Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“If
the meaning of a claim term is clear from the intrinsic evi-
dence, there is no reason to resort to extrinsic evidence.”).
However, even if we were to look to extrinsic evidence for
additional context, Ultravision’s expert testimony would
not counsel against the construction reached. As the dis-
trict court pointed out, Ultravision’s expert also acknowl-
edged that “[o]ne useful reference that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would be familiar with when dealing with
waterproofing is the Ingress Protection (IP) standard.”
Claim Construction Order, 2020 WL 12570811, at *10
(quoting J.A. 1986).
Thus, we affirm the construction of “waterproof” as “in-
gress protection (IP) rating of IP 65 or higher.” And, be-
cause Ultravision challenges the final judgment of
invalidity and noninfringement of claim 9 of the ’782 patent
based only on this construction, we affirm the judgment.
II
Ultravision also challenges the district court’s con-
struction of “display module”—it stipulated to
Case: 22-1098 Document: 42 Page: 11 Filed: 02/23/2023
ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOVISION, LLC 11
noninfringement of claims 14 and 15 of the ’791 patent and
claims 15 and 17 of the ’105 based on the construction. We
also reject this challenge because we agree with the district
court’s construction of “display module” as “module having
a pair of LED display panels operatively coupled to a
daughter board.”
The court based its construction on its conclusion that
“the patentee indicated that the daughter board and pair
of LED panels are ‘important and unique feature of the pre-
sent invention,’” Claim Construction Order, 2020 WL
12570811, at *33 (citing ’791 patent col. 34 ll. 41–63), and
that “every disclosed embodiment includes a pair of LED
panels operatively coupled to a daughter board,” id. (citing
’791 patent col. 25 ll. 30–33, col. 27 ll. 1–7, col. 38 ll. 9–14,
col. 43 ll. 62–67).
We agree with the district court’s evaluation. The spec-
ification describes that a display module includes a single
daughter board connected to two display panels. Specifi-
cally, it explains that “each display module 14 also includes
a centrally disposed daughter board 20 which handles the
transfer of data between each of the display panel assem-
blies 14L and 14R respectively.” ’791 patent col. 34
ll. 41–45; see also id. at col. 25 ll. 30–33 (“Each individual
display panel module . . . includes dual LED display pan-
els.” (emphasis added)), col. 27 ll. 2–6 (“[W]ith the aid of an
interconnecting daughter board . . . a significant reduction
is achieved as only a single DC/DC converter is utilized to
power the two optimum sized LED panels . . . .” (emphasis
added)), col. 43 ll. 63–66 (describing the figure as showing
that “display module 14 generally includes the daughter
board 20 and its associated LED display panel boards 14L
and 14R respectively”). Additionally, the specification
states that this arrangement of a single daughter board
connected to two LED panels “is an important and unique
feature of the present invention.” Id. at col. 34 ll. 50–52.
Case: 22-1098 Document: 42 Page: 12 Filed: 02/23/2023
12 ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOVISION, LLC
Where the specification repeatedly emphasizes a fea-
ture as unique or distinguishing, we have found that indic-
ative of “what the patentee has claimed and disclaimed.”
SafeTCare Mfg., 497 F.3d at 1270. As discussed above, the
specification can impart meaning explicitly or implicitly.
Here, the specification is clear that the invention’s “display
module” has a pair of LED display panels operatively cou-
pled to a daughter board. Thus, the disclosure indicates
that a single LED panel coupled to the daughter board falls
outside the claimed scope of “display module.”
Ultravision is incorrect that the specification described
the center mounting arrangement as unique instead of the
pair of LED panels coupled to a daughter board. See Ap-
pellant’s Br. 51. They are the same feature. The “im-
portant and unique” center mounting arrangement is
described as involving a pair of LED displays with the
daughter board located centrally between them; the speci-
fication explains that the arrangement is beneficial be-
cause it enables two LED panels to be powered and
controlled by a single daughter board. See ’791 patent
col. 34 ll. 41–58.
Further, Ultravision primarily relies on a single sen-
tence in the specification to argue that the district court’s
construction improperly excludes a disclosed single-panel
embodiment. But the specification’s statement that “[i]n
one embodiment, the at least one LED board includes two
LED boards disposed in a side-by-side arrangement along
the X-axis,” ’791 patent col. 2 ll. 27–29, does not indicate
that the claimed scope of “display module” captures an em-
bodiment with a single LED panel coupled to a daughter
board. First, it is not clear that “one LED board” is even
synonymous with one LED panel. Further, the description
of a single embodiment where a first aspect of the display
module comprises “at least one LED board” (which clearly
includes two LED boards) is not enough to overcome the
specification’s description of a pair of LED panels coupled
Case: 22-1098 Document: 42 Page: 13 Filed: 02/23/2023
ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOVISION, LLC 13
to a daughter board as important and unique to the inven-
tion.
In sum, we affirm the district court’s construction of
“display module” and affirm the stipulated judgment of
noninfringement of claims 14 and 15 of the ’791 patent and
claims 15 and 17 of the ’105 patent under that construction.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Ultravision’s other arguments and
find them unpersuasive. Because the district court cor-
rectly construed “waterproof” and “display module,” we af-
firm.
AFFIRMED