Preliminary Injunction Vacated Due to Claim Construction Errors

Socket Solutions, LLC v. Import Global, LLC

Before Moore, Prost, and Seeborg.  Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Summary: A preliminary injunction cannot stand when the likelihood-of-success analysis relies on erroneous claim constructions.

Socket Solutions, LLC (“Socket Solutions”) sued Import Global, LLC (“Import Global”), alleging that Import Global’s Neat Socket® product infringed Socket Solutions’ U.S. Patent No. 9,509,080 (the “’080 patent”), which relates to electrical outlet covers. The district court granted Socket Solutions a preliminary injunction barring Import Global from manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing into the United States its Neat Socket® product. Import Global appealed, arguing that the district court incorrectly construed the claim terms “backplate” and “pin” when evaluating likelihood of success on the merits.

The Federal Circuit agreed. First, it held that the district court improperly construed “backplate” to require a spatial relationship to the claimed “frontplate.” The Federal Circuit construed “backplate” with a focus on “cover” thickness to align with the specification and the principle articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005), that “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.”

Second, the Federal Circuit held that the district court incorrectly construed “pin” as a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The claim term “pin” does not use the word “means,” so there is a rebuttable presumption that § 112(f) does not apply. Socket Solutions argued that § 112(f) should apply, despite “pin” being a structure, because it is a structural element that is best defined by its function. The Federal Circuit disagreed, noting that “[n]ot everything that ‘physically and electrically connects the electrical wires to the corresponding electrical prongs’ is a ‘pin,’” so a purely functional definition would be overly broad. Socket Solutions did not overcome that presumption because “pin” is a structural term understood by skilled artisans and described structurally in the specification. The Federal Circuit held that § 112(f) does not apply and that “pin” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.

Because the district court’s likelihood-of-success analysis depended on these erroneous claim constructions, the Federal Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings.

Editor: Sean Murray