Kolcraft Enters., Inc. v. Chicco USA, Inc., No. 09 C 3339, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 2, 2016) (Chang, J.).
Judge Chang construed the claims in this patent case involving play gyms and play yards for babies. Of particular note, the Court held as follows:
- The Court did not resolve the parties’ dispute regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art because neither party explained why it mattered to any issue before the Court.
- The steps of claims 28 did not need to be performed in the same sequential order as recited in the claim.
- “Securing a play gym” was not indefinite because the claim and the specification taught that the play gym was secured to the play yard, bassinet or the mat.
- “Securing a play gym” was construed as requiring that the “play gym must be connected to, attached to, or otherwise in direct contact with the play yard, bassinet, or mat, such that the play gym’s legs are arched in a fixed position by the presence of some countervailing force caused by the play yard, bassinet, or mat.
- “Securing the play gym to a mat apart from the play gym and the bassinet” should be stated “securing the play gym to a mat apart from the play yard and the bassinet.” (emphasis added to show the change).
- “Pivoting” was construed as requiring that “the leg must rotate, turn, or move about a fixed point into a stored position.”
- “Stored position” was construed to mean “when the legs are generally parallel to each other.”
- “Secure the leg” was construed to mean “the legs are substantially fixed in the stored position without the application of a countervailing force.”