The location term “end” is generally limited to the region at or near where a corresponding structure ceases to exist. Here, for example, while the claim term “proximate end” was found to encompass some offset from the absolute end of a corresponding shipping container, it was not found to extend to a region 35% away from the extreme end as in the accused device, even under the doctrine of equivalents. It may therefore be best to use relative terms such as “first region” and so on rather than absolute terms such as “proximate end” when the absolute location is not of particular importance.
Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here is directed to loading shipping containers with bulk material for storage or transport. The asserted claims require that a “container packer piston-and-cylinder unit” be connected to a “container packer proximate end.” Meanwhile, the same container packer piston-and-cylinder unit in the accused device is connected to the bottom of the container packer at approximately 35% down its length.
Issue(s): Whether the claimed “proximate end” should be construed broadly to mean the “back half” of the container packer rather than being limited to the extreme or absolute edge.
Holding(s): No. “Here, the asserted claims are narrowly and specifically drawn, reciting ‘a container packer including a proximate end, a distal end with an opening, opposite sidewalls, a floor, and an interior.’ [] The claims thus define the ‘floor’ of the container as being a separate element from the proximate end. Because the piston-and-cylinder unit in [the accused device] attaches to the floor, nearly 35% away from the extreme end, no reasonable jury could find that the [accused device’s] piston-and- cylinder unit is connected to the container packer’s proximate end.”