United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MATTHEW F. KENNELLY United States District Judge.
Pet Shop Enterprises, Inc. has sued Maze Innovations, Inc.
for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8, 720, 218 (the
'218 Patent) and 9, 226, 474 (the '474 Patent). Maze
filed a motion requesting that this Court construe four terms
found in both patents. The parties submitted written briefs,
and the Court held a claim construction hearing on November
4, 2016. This opinion sets forth the Court's construction
of disputed claim language.
Pet Shop is a pet product manufacturer and owns both the
'218 Patent and the '474 Patent. These patents
disclose a pressure-activated cooling pad for pets. When an
animal sits on the pad, components of the pad interact in
order to reduce the animal's temperature. When the pet
gets up-thereby reducing the pressure on the pad-the pad
recharges itself. Green Pet Shop claims that its invention is
an advance over prior art due to its pressure-activation and
the fact that it recharges.
also makes and sells pet products, including two called the
"Chilly Mat" and the "Pet Gel Mat" that
are also used to cool pets. Green Pet Shop alleges that these
products infringe its patents. Specifically, Green Pet Shop
alleges that Maze is infringing claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 of
the '218 Patent and claims 1, 11, and 16-21 of the
has requested construction of four claim terms that appear
frequently throughout both of Green Pet Shop's patents.
The terms are used similarly throughout the patents. Claim 15
of the '218 Patent is representative of the disputed
A cooling platform for cooling an object, the platform
a temperature regulation layer, the temperature regulation
layer having an angled segment formed by a top side and a
bottom side at a predefined distance, and channels, wherein
the channels form sides by contacting the top side with the
bottom side; and
a pressure activated recharging cooling composition within
the temperature regulation layer, the pressure activated
recharging cooling composition endothermically activated and
endothermically deactivated upon the application and release
of pressure, respectively.
asks the Court to construe the following four terms or
phrases: 1) "pressure"; 2) "a pressure
activated recharging cooling composition"; 3) "the
pressure activated recharging cooling composition
endothermically activated . . . upon the application of
pressure"; and 4) "the pressure activated
recharging cooling composition . . . endothermically
deactivated upon the . . . release of pressure." Green
Pet Shop argues that this Court need only interpret certain
portions of each phrase: 1) "pressure"; 2)
"recharging"; 3) "endothermically
activated"; and 4) "endothermically
end of briefing, the parties no longer disputed the meaning
of "pressure, " agreeing that it should be
construed as "force per unit area." The Court
therefore need not construe this term and turns instead to
the other three phrases proposed by Maze.
Which terms should be interpreted
district court is not required to construe every limitation
present in a patent's asserted claims. O2 Micro
Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d
1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A court is required to construe
only those terms "that are in controversy, and only to
the extent necessary to resolve the controversy."
Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g,
Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 ...