United States District Court, D. Columbia.
INTEX RECREATION CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
TEAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
For INTEX RECREATION CORPORATION, Plaintiff: Troy E. Grabow, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Gerald Francis Ivey, LEAD ATTORNEY, Edward J. Naidich, Kara F. Stoll, John M. Williamson, FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP, Washington, DC; R. Trevor Carter, PRO HAC VICE, FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP, Indianapolis, IN.
For TEAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, Defendant: Andrew R. Kopsidas, LEAD ATTORNEY, FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C., Washington, DC; Christopher B. Hadley, Laura R. Braden, PRO HAC VICE, Kurt L. Glitzenstein, FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C., Boston, MA.
For TEAM WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, Counter Claimant: Laura R. Braden, PRO HAC VICE, Kurt L. Glitzenstein, FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C., Boston, MA.
For INTEX RECREATION CORPORATION, Counter Defendant: Troy E. Grabow, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Gerald Francis Ivey, LEAD ATTORNEY, Edward J. Naidich, Kara F. Stoll, John M. Williamson, FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP, Washington, DC.
OPINION AND ORDER
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, United States District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson's claim construction decision. Plaintiff Intex Recreation Corporation asserts that Judge Robinson misconstrued the terms " socket" and " pump body", as used in the air mattress patent owned by defendant Team Worldwide Corporation. After careful consideration of the arguments made in the parties' papers and at oral argument, the relevant legal authorities, and the entire record in this case, the Court sets aside in part and adopts in part Judge Robinson's decision. The Court
sustains plaintiff's objection to Judge Robinson's construction of " socket" and accepts the alternative construction proposed by plaintiff. The Court overrules plaintiff's objection regarding the term " pump body" and will adopt Judge Robinson's construction of that term, with a slight modification.
This case involves a dispute between two manufacturers of air mattresses of the sort used in homes and on camping trips. Plaintiff Intex Recreation Corporation (" Intex" ) and defendant Team Worldwide Corporation (" TWW" ) disagree as to the scope of United States Patent No. 6,703,469 B2 (" the '469 Patent" ), currently owned by TWW. See U.S. Patent No. 6,703,469 B2 (filed December 18, 2000). The invention claimed by the '469 Patent is an air mattress comprised of an inflatable body, a socket, an electric pump that includes a pump body and an air outlet, and a battery case. See '469 Patent col.1 ll.30-35 (Summary of the Invention); id. at col.7 ll.24-35, col.8 ll.24 - col.9 ll.60 (Claims).
TWW notes that unlike prior designs of air mattresses, which were inflated by electric pumps located on the outside of the inflatable body, this product could be inflated by inserting the pump body " partially or wholly" into a socket located within the inflatable body of the mattress, thus permitting a user to inflate or deflate the mattress without having to manually hold the electric pump in place. See TWW Claim Constr. Mot. 3. Intex points out that the invention claimed under the '469 Patent departs from the prior art by enabling a user to inflate and deflate the mattress by changing the rotation of the electric pump. ...