Evolusion Concepts, Inc. v. Hoc Events, Inc., Dba Supertool USA

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
HOC EVENTS, INC., DBA SUPERTOOL USA,
Defendant
______________________
2021-1963
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:19-cv-02736-JLS-
DFM, Judge Josephine L. Staton.
------------------------------------------------
EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
JUGGERNAUT TACTICAL, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2021-1987
______________________
Case: 21-1963 Document: 36 Page: 1 Filed: 01/14/2022

-- 1 of 14 --

EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC. v. HOC EVENTS, INC. 2
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 8:18-cv-01378-JLS-
DFM, Judge Josephine L. Staton.
______________________
Decided: January 14, 2022
______________________
ALLEN MARCEL SOKAL , Insigne PC, Carlsbad, CA, ar-
gued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by T REVOR
CODDINGTON; D ONNY SAMPORNA, Haley Guiliano LLP, San
Jose, CA.
BOBBY B RAXTON, Braxton Perrone PLLC, Frisco, TX,
argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
G REGORY P ERRONE.
______________________
Before P ROST , T ARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
T ARANTO, Circuit Judge.
Evolusion Concepts, Inc. owns U.S. Patent No.
8,756,845, titled “Method and Device for Converting Fire-
arm with Detachable Magazine to a Firearm with Fixed
Magazine.” In the main case before us, Evolusion sued
Juggernaut Tactical, Inc. in the Central District of Califor-
nia, alleging infringement of claims 1–3 and 8–10 of the
’845 patent. On the parties’ cross-motions for summary
judgment regarding infringement, the district court
granted Juggernaut summary judgment of non-infringe-
ment. Evolusion Concepts, Inc. v. Juggernaut Tactical,
Inc., No. 8:18-cv-01378, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77792, at
*27 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2020) (Juggernaut Decision). The
court’s key ruling was that the term “magazine catch bar”
in the asserted claims of the ’845 patent excludes a factory-
installed magazine catch bar. Id. at *13–22. That claim
construction concededly precludes literal infringement, the
court held, because Juggernaut’s products use the factory-
Case: 21-1963 Document: 36 Page: 2 Filed: 01/14/2022

-- 2 of 14 --

EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC. v. HOC EVENTS, INC. 3
installed magazine catch bar. Id. at *22–23. The court also
determined that Juggernaut does not infringe under the
doctrine of equivalents. Id. at *23–26.
On Evolusion’s appeal, we hold that the term “maga-
zine catch bar” in the asserted claims includes a factory-
installed magazine catch bar. We therefore reverse the
grant of summary judgment of non-infringement, reverse
the denial of summary judgment of direct infringement as
to the independent claims 1 and 8, and remand for further
proceedings in Appeal No. 21-1987, which is the appeal in
the Juggernaut case. We also vacate and remand in Appeal
No. 21-1963, which involves a separate, related case, dis-
cussed near the end of this opinion.
I
A
The ’845 patent describes a device and method for con-
verting a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine
to one with a fixed magazine. ’845 patent, col. 2, lines 3–5.
A detachable magazine allows a user to fire the weapon un-
til the magazine is depleted, then simply release the mag-
azine, insert a new magazine, and resume firing. Id., col.
1, lines 22–27. A fixed magazine, in contrast, can be re-
moved and replaced only by disassembling certain non-
magazine parts of the firearm, slowing the rate of fire. Id.,
col. 1, lines 50–53; col. 2, lines 20–28. The specification ex-
plains that firearms with detachable magazines are likely
to face increased legal restrictions. Id., col. 1, lines 63–64.
In particular, the specification notes the introduction in
Congress of a bill to enact the Assault Weapons Ban of
2013, which would have banned semi-automatic weapons
with detachable magazines. Id., col. 1, lines 30–59.
The patent describes a “standard OEM [original equip-
ment manufacturer] semi-automatic rifle” as having a
“magazine catch assembly” containing several components.
Id., col. 2, lines 35–53. It then describes “[t]he invention”
Case: 21-1963 Document: 36 Page: 3 Filed: 01/14/2022

-- 3 of 14 --

EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC. v. HOC EVENTS, INC. 4
as a “permanent fixture added to a semi-automatic firearm
by removing the standard OEM magazine catch assembly
and installing the invention.” Id., col. 2, lines 55–58. At
least in “one aspect of the present invention,” the resulting
firearm contains “a lower receiver, a magazine catch bar,
and an upper tension bar.” Id., col. 2, lines 65–67. The
magazine catch bar can be attached to the lower receiver of
the firearm and fit within a recess of the magazine well.
Id., col. 2, line 67, through col. 3, line 2. The upper tension
bar on the lower receiver applies pressure against the fire-
arm’s upper receiver, rendering the magazine catch bar im-
movable. Id., col. 3, lines 2–6. The magazine can be
released only when the upper receiver is separated from
the lower receiver. Id., col. 4, line 64, through col. 5, line 4;
id., figs. 1 & 2. The specification also discusses a method
of installing the invention, comprising removing the entire
factory-installed magazine release button assembly, in-
stalling a magazine catch bar onto the lower receiver, and
installing an upper tension bar onto the lower receiver. Id.,
col. 3, lines 48–65.
The ’845 patent has three independent claims. These
claims are:
1. A firearm with a fixed magazine comprising
a lower receiver having a magazine well configured
to receive a magazine with a side-locking recess
with a recess in the magazine well
a magazine catch bar securely attached to the fire-
arm, said magazine catch bar resting within the
magazine side-locking recess
an upper tension bar which extends towards and
contacts the upper receiver.
8. A device for converting a firearm with a detach-
able magazine into a firearm with a fixed magazine
comprising
Case: 21-1963 Document: 36 Page: 4 Filed: 01/14/2022

-- 4 of 14 --

EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC. v. HOC EVENTS, INC. 5
A magazine catch bar securely attached to the
lower receiver of said firearm, said magazine catch
bar resting within the magazine side-locking recess
An upper tension bar which extends towards and
contacts the upper receiver.
15. A method for converting a firearm with a de-
tachable magazine into a firearm with a fixed mag-
azine comprising
Removing the factory installed magazine release
button assembly
Said removal comprising the steps of
depressing the magazine release button to a suffi-
cient depth to permit the factory installed maga-
zine catch bar to extend beyond the magazine well
of the lower receiver,
rotating the factory installed magazine catch bar in
a counterclockwise fashion until the factory in-
stalled magazine catch bar is unthreaded from the
factory installed screw end of the magazine release
button,
removing all parts of the factory installed maga-
zine release button assembly
Installing a magazine catch bar to the lower re-
ceiver of the firearm, said magazine catch bar rest-
ing within the magazine side-locking recess
Installing an upper tension bar to the lower re-
ceiver of the firearm, said upper tension bar ex-
tending towards and contacting the upper receiver.
Id., col. 7, lines 27–35; col. 8, lines 4–10; col. 8, lines 47–67
(emphases added).
Case: 21-1963 Document: 36 Page: 5 Filed: 01/14/2022

-- 5 of 14 --

EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC. v. HOC EVENTS, INC. 6
B
In August 2018, Evolusion sued Juggernaut for in-
fringement of claims 1, 8, and 15 of the ’845 patent based
on Juggernaut’s manufacture and sale of its “Hellfighter
Mod Kits,” which convert a firearm with a detachable mag-
azine into a firearm with a fixed magazine. Juggernaut
asserted invalidity as an affirmative defense and filed a
counterclaim for a declaratory judgment limited to non-in-
fringement. Subsequently, Evolusion dropped its assertion
of method claim 15 and added assertions of infringement of
dependent claims 2–3 and 9–10 (apparatus claims). In
claim-construction proceedings from May to July 2019, the
only phrase for which the parties sought a construction was
“upper tension bar,” but the court decided that no construc-
tion was needed.
Evolusion then sought summary judgment of direct in-
fringement, as well as induced and contributory infringe-
ment, of claims 1–3 and 8–10. Juggernaut, for its part,
moved for summary judgment of non-infringement. At
that time, construction of the term “magazine catch bar”
became necessary, because in Juggernaut’s products the
factory-installed magazine catch bar is retained in the con-
version of a firearm to one with a fixed magazine. The par-
ties agreed that whether Juggernaut infringes
independent claims 1 and 8 “depends entirely on” whether
the claim phrase “magazine catch bar” includes a factory-
installed (OEM) magazine catch bar. Juggernaut Decision
at *7.
The district court concluded that the term “magazine
catch bar,” as used in the claims and specification, excludes
an OEM magazine catch bar. Id. at *16–17. The court
based its determination primarily on the sentence in the
specification that states: “The invention is a permanent fix-
ture added to a semi-automatic firearm by removing the
standard OEM magazine catch assembly and installing the
invention.” ’845 patent, col. 2, lines 55–58. Because the
Case: 21-1963 Document: 36 Page: 6 Filed: 01/14/2022

-- 6 of 14 --

EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC. v. HOC EVENTS, INC. 7
OEM magazine catch bar is one of the components removed
to install “the invention,” the court determined that the
“magazine catch bar” of the invention cannot be an OEM
magazine catch bar. Juggernaut Decision at *17. The
court also reasoned that the language of unasserted claim
15 supports its construction. Because claim 15 requires re-
moving “the factory installed magazine catch bar” and then
installing “a magazine catch bar,” the court concluded that
the magazine catch bar that is installed must be “separate
and distinct from the factory-installed magazine catch
bar”; otherwise, “factory-installed” would be superfluous.
Id. at *20–22. And because a term that appears in multiple
claims should be given the same meaning in all those
claims, the court held that the term “magazine catch bar”
in claims 1 and 8 similarly must exclude a factory-installed
magazine catch bar. Id. at *21. Under that construction,
as noted, Juggernaut does not literally infringe independ-
ent claims 1 and 8. Id. at *22.
The court proceeded to rule that, under the construc-
tion it had adopted, Juggernaut cannot infringe under the
doctrine of equivalents. It reasoned that, by disclosing but
not claiming a factory-installed magazine catch bar, Evolu-
sion had dedicated a factory-installed magazine catch bar
to the public. Id. at *25. It added that, because the terms
“magazine catch bar” and “factory-installed magazine
catch bar” are separately identified in the ’845 patent, the
magazine catch bar of the claims cannot be an insubstan-
tial alteration of a factory-installed magazine catch bar.
Id. at *25–26.
The court went on to explain that, because Juggernaut
does not directly infringe claims 1 and 8, it does not directly
infringe the other asserted claims, all dependent on claim
1 or claim 8; that, if there is no direct infringement, Jug-
gernaut also does not indirectly infringe any asserted
claims; and, finally, that the affirmative defense of invalid-
ity need not be considered. Id. at *26–28. None of those
Case: 21-1963 Document: 36 Page: 7 Filed: 01/14/2022

-- 7 of 14 --

EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC. v. HOC EVENTS, INC. 8
rulings are disputed on appeal. The district court entered
a final judgment of non-infringement in April 2021.
Evolusion timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).1
II
We begin with the claim-construction issue presented
respecting claims 1 and 8. Claim construction is ultimately
a question of law, decided de novo on review, as are the in-
trinsic-evidence aspects of a claim-construction analysis.
Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 331
(2015). The district court relied for its claim construction
in Juggernaut only on intrinsic evidence from the specifi-
cation, see Juggernaut Decision at *16–22, and we there-
fore review the construction de novo. The question is
whether the term “magazine catch bar” in the asserted
claims includes a factory-installed magazine catch bar.
“[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordi-
nary and customary meaning,’” as understood by a relevant
artisan at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations
omitted). A relevant artisan is not deemed to read a term
in a vacuum, but instead “is deemed to read the claim term
. . . in the context of the particular claim in which the dis-
puted term appears,” and “in the context of the entire pa-
tent, including the specification.” Id. at 1313. And because
1 On October 26, 2021, the district court issued an
order granting attorney’s fees to Juggernaut as a “prevail-
ing party” under 35 U.S.C. § 285. On November 24, 2021,
the court issued an amended final judgment incorporating
the award of attorney’s fees. On December 3, 2021, Evolu-
sion filed an amended notice of appeal to include, in this
appeal, the district court’s final judgment granting attor-
ney’s fees to Juggernaut. Juggernaut has not objected to
inclusion of that order in this appeal.
Case: 21-1963 Document: 36 Page: 8 Filed: 01/14/2022

-- 8 of 14 --

EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC. v. HOC EVENTS, INC. 9
“claim terms are normally used consistently throughout
the patent,” other claims of the patent, both asserted and
unasserted, can provide insight into the meaning of a claim
term. Id. at 1314; see also In re Varma, 816 F.3d 1353, 1363
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he principle that the same phrase in
different claims of the same patent should have the same
meaning is a strong one, overcome only if ‘it is clear’ that
the same phrase has different meanings in different
claims.” (citation omitted)).
Independent claims 1 and 8 claim a firearm and a de-
vice, respectively, that contain “a magazine catch bar,”
which is securely attached to the firearm and sits within
the recess of the lower receiver. ’845 patent, col. 7, lines
27–35; col. 8, lines 4–10. Nothing in the language of claims
1 and 8 limits the scope of the generic term “magazine catch
bar” to exclude one that was factory installed—specifically,
as Juggernaut asserts, factory installed as part of an origi-
nal firearm with a detachable magazine. Nor does Jugger-
naut assert that either the ordinary meaning of the phrase
itself, or any other language in these claims, points to such
a restriction based on provenance.
Juggernaut instead relies on unasserted claim 15,
which, it argues, informs the meaning of “magazine catch
bar” in claims 1 and 8 and precludes adopting the ordinary
meaning of “magazine catch bar.” Juggernaut is correct
that the meaning of the term in claims 1 and 8 could well
be informed by a meaning of the term made sufficiently
clear in claim 15. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. But Jug-
gernaut is incorrect that the use of “magazine catch bar” in
claim 15 narrows the meaning of the term to support the
urged exclusion of factory-installed magazine catch bars.
Independent claim 15 claims a method of removing the
factory-installed magazine release button assembly and in-
stalling a new device. The claim’s first step requires “re-
moving all parts of the factory installed magazine release
button assembly.” ’845 patent, col. 8, lines 47–67
Case: 21-1963 Document: 36 Page: 9 Filed: 01/14/2022

-- 9 of 14 --

EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC. v. HOC EVENTS, INC. 10
(emphasis added). One of the components of that assembly
is “the factory installed magazine catch bar.” Id. The next
steps involve installing two components: an upper tension
bar and “a magazine catch bar.” Id. The invention thus
involves removing and installing assemblies of parts—not
only magazine catch bars. An instruction that identifies
the removed assembly as including a factory-installed mag-
azine catch bar, which focuses the process on conversion of
what came from a factory, does not imply any preclusion of
reuse of the same bar as one part of the assembly being
installed in place of the removed assembly. The ordinary
meaning of the claim language allows the factory-installed
magazine catch bar to be removed as part of the initial as-
sembly removal and reused as part of the assembly in-
stalled in a later step.
Accepting Juggernaut’s position would amount to read-
ing additional limitations into claim 15 not required by its
language. Claim 15 requires only “removing” a specific
type of magazine catch bar (the one installed by the manu-
facturer) and then installing “a magazine catch bar.” Id.
(emphasis added). It does not require, as a removal step,
“discarding” the OEM catch bar. Nor does it require in-
stalling a “new” or “different” magazine catch bar. Jugger-
naut argues that the use of “a” before “magazine catch bar,”
instead of antecedent-basis language such as “said” or
“the,” means that the two magazine catch bars must be dif-
ferent. The use of antecedent-basis language like “said” or
“the,” however, would have narrowed the term to cover only
a factory installed magazine catch bar, and neither party
advances that construction. The inventors, in the inde-
pendent claims, did not choose to claim a device with a
“new” or “different” magazine catch bar, but instead a de-
vice with “a magazine catch bar,” which, by its ordinary
meaning, could be either the removed catch bar or a new or
different catch bar.
The specification supports the ordinary-meaning inter-
pretation of “magazine catch bar.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
Case: 21-1963 Document: 36 Page: 10 Filed: 01/14/2022

-- 10 of 14 --

EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC. v. HOC EVENTS, INC. 11
1315 (“[C]laims must be read in view of the specification, of
which they are part.” (internal quotation marks and cita-
tion omitted)). The specification nowhere limits the scope
of a “magazine catch bar” to exclude factory-installed ones
from the assembly that achieves the fixed-magazine goal.
Nor, contrary to a suggestion made by Juggernaut, does it
explain that only a customized or modified magazine catch
bar, one necessarily different from what was factory in-
stalled, may be used on the firearm. It simply explains that
the described embodiments of the invention all include a
“magazine catch bar” that can be securely attached to the
lower receiver of the firearm, and consistently describes
the component in generic terms. Id., col. 2, line 65, through
col. 3, line 2; see also id., col. 5, lines 5–7.
Juggernaut argues, and Evolusion concedes, that the
disclosed embodiments do not illustrate OEM magazine
catch bars. See id., figs. 3 & 4. But that cannot make a
difference in this case. We have repeatedly held that “it is
not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the embod-
iments, contain a particular limitation to limit claims be-
yond their plain meaning.” Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple,
Inc., 829 F.3d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quota-
tion marks and citation omitted). Here, nothing in the
specification suggests that factory (or OEM) provenance of
a bar disqualifies it from being part of the invention if, as
a structural matter, it is a magazine catch bar under the
ordinary meaning. And nothing in the specification sug-
gests that factory (or OEM) installation precludes the pos-
session of the structural features required by the invention.
The specification reiterates the background principle that
the claims are not limited to the illustrated embodiments.
’845 patent, col. 4, lines 46–53. And it describes and illus-
trates at least one embodiment in which the magazine
catch bar is a separate element from the upper tension bar,
id., col. 5, lines 5–10, 17–20; id., fig. 3, reinforcing the idea
that there is no requirement to replace each individual
Case: 21-1963 Document: 36 Page: 11 Filed: 01/14/2022

-- 11 of 14 --

EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC. v. HOC EVENTS, INC. 12
component in the assembly in order to replace the assem-
bly as a whole.
The district court relied primarily on one sentence of
the specification to conclude that the specification excludes
a factory-installed magazine catch bar: “The invention is a
permanent fixture added to a semi-automatic firearm by
removing the standard OEM magazine catch assembly and
installing the invention.” ’845 patent, col. 2, lines 55–58.
But that statement has the same character as what is
found in claim 15. For the reasons already discussed with
respect to claim 15, the specification sentence does not pre-
clude the installation of a factory-installed magazine catch
bar.
Finally, Juggernaut argues that the patent is “abun-
dantly clear” that the invention cannot function with the
OEM magazine catch assembly. Juggernaut’s Opening Br.
at 8. But Juggernaut fails to cite to any portion of the spec-
ification that supports this operability assertion.
We thus construe the term “magazine catch bar” ac-
cording to its ordinary meaning, which includes a factory-
installed magazine catch bar. This construction not only
requires reversal of the grant of summary judgment to Jug-
gernaut—all parts of which relied on the claim construc-
tion we have held to be incorrect as a matter of law. It also
requires reversal of the denial of summary judgment of in-
fringement to Evolusion as to claims 1 and 8, because the
parties have agreed that direct infringement of claims 1
and 8 is established if the term “magazine catch bar” is con-
strued to include a factory-installed magazine catch bar.
Oral Arg. at 29:55–30:15 (Juggernaut’s counsel conceding
that the “sole issue” of literal infringement of claim 1 and
8 is the construction of “magazine catch bar”); see also Jug-
gernaut Decision at *7. There is no such agreement about
the dependent claims, which must be reconsidered on re-
mand, along with any issues in the case about indirect in-
fringement or the affirmative defense of invalidity. The
Case: 21-1963 Document: 36 Page: 12 Filed: 01/14/2022

-- 12 of 14 --

EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC. v. HOC EVENTS, INC. 13
district court’s determination that it need not reach those
issues depended on its conclusions we reverse here.
We reverse the court’s grant of summary judgment of
no infringement, reverse the court’s denial of summary
judgment of infringement of claims 1 and 8, and remand
for the district court to address the other asserted claims.
Because we reverse the court’s determination of literal in-
fringement, we need not reach the court’s determination of
infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. We vacate
the award of attorney’s fees because Juggernaut is no
longer a prevailing party, a status required to receive a fee
award under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
III
Appeal No. 21-1963 involves a separate infringement
action brought by Evolusion against HOC Events, Inc., dba
Supertool USA, alleging infringement of both product and
method claims of the ’845 patent. When HOC failed to re-
spond to the complaint, the clerk of the district court en-
tered a “default” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
55(a). With the requests for relief not yet adjudicated, Evo-
lusion moved for a “default judgment” under Rule 55(b),
but the court denied the motion. In its denial, the court,
citing its ruling in the Juggernaut case, stated that Evolu-
sion failed to state a viable claim for infringement against
HOC, because HOC’s products require reusing the factory-
installed magazine catch bar. Evolusion Concepts, Inc. v.
HOC Events, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-02736, 2021 WL 2007068
(C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2021). Evolusion noticed an appeal from
the April 14 order. HOC has not appeared on appeal.
The April 14 order on its face merely denies Evolusion
a judgment in its favor; it does not order any judgment
against Evolusion, let alone a final judgment. Nor is the
clerk-entered Rule 55(a) “default” a final judgment against
Evolusion. See 15A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice
and Procedure § 3914.5 & nn.1.50 & 2 (2d ed.). But, alt-
hough Evolusion has not addressed the jurisdictional
Case: 21-1963 Document: 36 Page: 13 Filed: 01/14/2022

-- 13 of 14 --

EVOLUSION CONCEPTS, INC. v. HOC EVENTS, INC. 14
finality problem raised by those facts, we think it proper to
treat the April 14 order as a final judgment. The order de-
clares that Evolusion has no claim it can pursue, and in
light of that declaration there was evidently nothing left to
do in the litigation in district court after the April 14 order.
Indeed, the clerk notified the Patent and Trademark Office
of termination of the case on the same date, and the court’s
official electronic docket records the case as closed. In
these circumstances, we treat the April 14 order as a final
judgment, which we have jurisdiction to review under 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). For the reasons set forth in our discus-
sion of the Juggernaut case, we vacate the April 14 order
in the HOC case and remand for further proceedings con-
sistent with this opinion.
IV
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the entry of sum-
mary judgment of non-infringement, reverse the denial of
summary judgment of direct infringement as to claims 1
and 8, vacate the award of attorney’s fees, and remand for
further proceedings consistent with our claim construction
in Appeal No. 21-1987. We vacate and remand in Appeal
No. 21-1963.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND
REMANDED
Case: 21-1963 Document: 36 Page: 14 Filed: 01/14/2022

-- 14 of 14 --