Another district court's claim construction vacated: On-line v. Perkin-Elmer

Case: ON-LINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
BODENSEEWERK PERKIN-ELMER GMBH,
PERKIN-ELMER CORP., PERKIN-ELMER INC.,
SICK UPA GMBH, and SICK, A.G. (decided October 13, 2004)

We find the all-too-familiar words:

Accordingly, because the summary judgment of noninfringement was based on an erroneous claim construction, we vacate the judgment of noninfringement and remand the case for further proceedings on the remaining issues pertinent to On-Line’s claim of infringement.

Here, extrinsic evidence was rejected:

The district court relied on extrinsic evidence that the court interpreted as supporting its claim construction. Extrinsic evidence, however, cannot be used to alter a claim construction dictated by a proper analysis of the intrinsic evidence. See Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“When an analysis of intrinsic evidence resolves any ambiguity in a disputed claim term, it is improper to rely on extrinsic evidence to contradict the meaning so ascertained.”); Frank’s Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. v. PMR Techs., Ltd., 292 F.3d 1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Bell & Howell Document Mgmt. Prods. Co. v. Altek Sys., 132 F.3d 701, 706 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In any event, we do not agree with the district court’s analysis of the extrinsic evidence.