08-874

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWAREINVENTIO AG,:CIVIL ACTION:NO. 08-874-ERPlaintiff,::v.::THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR:AMERICAS CORPORATION,:et al.,::Defendants.:M E M O R A N D U MEDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J. June 14, 2010TABLE OF CONTENTSI.INTRODUCTION...............................................3II.BACKGROUND

.................................................

4III.CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

.........................................

6A.Patent 465 Claim 1....................................6B.Patent 465 Claim 2....................................7C.Patent 465 Claim 3....................................7D.Patent 465 Claim 10...................................7E.Patent 861 Claim 1....................................8F.Patent 861 Claim 2....................................8G.Patent 861 Claim 3....................................8H.Patent 861 Claim 11...................................8IV.LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION.....................9A. Plain and ordinary meaning

...........................

10B.Intrinsic evidence...................................11C.Extrinsic evidence...................................14D.Means-plus-function format...........................14V.TERM CONSTRUCTION.........................................16A. Undisputed Claim Terms...............................16“car call transmitter”...............................16“destination call report(s)”.........................16B.Disputed Claim Terms.................................17“modernized”/”modernizing”...........................17“modernizing device”.................................21“a device for temporarily operating an elevator

-2-installation during modernization”...................33“a system for modernizing an elevator installation”..33“a method for modernizing an elevator installation”..34“elevator installation”..............................36“elevator control”...................................39“call report”........................................42“floor terminal”.....................................45“at least one of [A] and [B]”........................46“floor terminal . . . operative for at least one inputof destination call reports and recognition ofidentification codes of passengers”..................46“floor terminal . . . for at least one of the input ofdestination call reports and for recognition ofidentification codes of users”.......................46“computing unit . . . for at least one of evaluatingthe destination call reports and association ofdestination floors with recognized ones of theidentification codes”................................47“identification code[s]”.............................56“recognition of identification codes of passengers”..58“computing unit”.....................................60“destination signal”.................................69“interrupting at least one existing electrical floorcall transmitter line between at least one floor calltransmitter and the elevator control”................72“interrupting at least one existing car calltransmitter line between at least one car calltransmitter and the elevator control”................72“the elevator control being disconnected from the hallcall transmitters and the car call transmitters of theelevator installation”...............................73“existing electrical floor call transmitter line”....76“existing car call transmitter line”.................76“floor call transmitter line input”..................77“car call transmitter line input”....................77“hall call transmitters”.............................82“in a modular manner”................................89“in succession”......................................89“performing said steps a. through c. [of claim 1] foreach elevator car and associated elevator control of anelevator installation in succession whereby theelevator installation is modernized in a modularmanner”..............................................89“temporarily”........................................96VI.CONCLUSION................................................98

-3-

I.INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Inventio AG (“Inventio” or “Plaintiff”)brought the instant action against Defendants ThyssenKruppElevator Americas Corp., ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp., andThyssenKrupp Manufacturing Incorporated (collectively referred toas “ThyssenKrupp” or “Defendants”) for patent infringement. Thetwo patents in controversy are as follows: (1) United StatesPatent No. 6,892,861, entitled “Destination Call Control forModernizing Elevator Installation” (“‘861 Patent"); and (2)United States Patent No. 6,935,465, entitled “Method forModernization of an Elevator Installation” (“‘465 Patent,"together with the ‘861 Patent, the “Patents-in-Suit”).Defendants assert counterclaims of non-infringement andinvalidity with respect to both the ‘861 Patent and the ‘465Patent.The Patents-in-Suit are designed to restore and upgradean existing conventional elevator system and its components to a“destination call control” elevator system. This process createsincreased efficiency of elevator traffic by eliminating multipleelevator destination stops and elevator car overcrowding.The parties briefed their respective positions on claimconstruction, and the Court conducted a Markman hearing on the