Hc Robotics, Aka Huicang Information Technology Co., Ltd., Invata, LLC, Dba Invata… v. International Trade Commission

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
HC ROBOTICS, AKA HUICANG INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., INVATA, LLC, DBA
INVATA INTRALOGISTICS,
Appellants
v.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Appellee
OPEX CORPORATION,
Intervenor
______________________
2024-1193
______________________
Appeal from the United States International Trade
Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1293.
______________________
Decided: August 22, 2025
______________________
EDWARD N AIDICH , Mei & Mark LLP, Washington, DC,
argued for appellants. Also represented by L EI MEI,
P HILIP ANDREW R ILEY , G UANG -Y U ZHU.
RICHARD P. HADORN, Office of the General Counsel,
United States International Trade Commission, Washing-
Case: 24-1193 Document: 58 Page: 1 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 1 of 22 --

HC ROBOTICS v. ITC 2
ton, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by L YNDE
F AUN HERZBACH , MICHELLE W. K LANCNIK.
D AVID J AMES SHAW , Desmarais LLP, Washington, DC,
argued for intervenor. Also represented by G OUTAM
P ATNAIK, REBECCA L INDHORST ; P AUL A. BONDOR, New
York, NY; T UHIN G ANGULY , Pepper Hamilton LLP, Wash-
ington, DC.
______________________
Before L OURIE, P ROST , and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
L OURIE, Circuit Judge.
HC Robotics and Invata, LLC (collectively “HC Robot-
ics”) appeal from a decision of the International Trade
Commission (“the Commission”). The Commission deter-
mined that HC Robotics’ Omnisort Gen 2 infringed claims
1 and 5 of U.S. Patent 8,622,194 (“the ’194 patent”) and
claims 1–5, 7–9, 11–13, 15, 16, and 18–20 of U.S. Patent
10,576,505 (“the ’505 patent”). See Certain Automated
Put Walls & Automated Storage & Retrieval Sys., Associ-
ated Vehicles, Associated Control Software, & Component
Parts Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1293, 2023 WL 5426449
(Aug. 17, 2023) (“Commission Opinion”); Certain Auto-
mated Put Walls & Automated Storage & Retrieval Sys.,
Associated Vehicles, Associated Control Software, &
Component Parts Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1293, 2023 WL
3093548 (Mar. 31, 2023) (“Initial Determination”). The
Commission found a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Sec-
tion 337”) and issued a limited exclusion order as well as
cease and desist orders. HC Robotics argues that errors
in claim construction resulted in a flawed infringement
analysis. For the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Case: 24-1193 Document: 58 Page: 2 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 2 of 22 --

HC ROBOTICS v. ITC 3
OPEX Corp. owns the ’194 and ’505 patents, which
are members of the same patent family, share a specifica-
tion, and are titled “Material Handing Apparatus for
Delivering or Retrieving Items.” See ’194 patent col. 1 ll.
1–2.1 The patents are directed to mail sorting systems
and disclose “[a] method and apparatus [] for sorting or
retrieving items to/from a plurality of destination areas”
where “delivery vehicles follow a track [] to/from the
destination areas, which are positioned along the track.”
Id. Abstract. Figure 1 illustrates an embodiment of the
invention:
Id. Figure 1. The specification describes the delivery
vehicle of the example embodiment traveling in a vertical
loop to sort an item into the appropriate output bin. See
1 Because the ’194 patent and ’505 patent share a
common specification, this opinion cites the ’194 patent as
representative unless otherwise indicated.
Case: 24-1193 Document: 58 Page: 3 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 3 of 22 --

HC ROBOTICS v. ITC 4
id. col. 2 l. 65–col. 3 l. 24. As the specification explains,
the delivery vehicle receives an item at loading station
310 and then travels upwardly to horizontal track 135,
where it then travels to the appropriate column of bins.
Id. col. 3 ll. 2–16. The track then directs the vehicle down
the vertical legs, where it stops at the appropriate bin and
discharges its item into the bin. Id. col. 3 ll. 16–19. The
vehicle then continues down to horizontal track 140,
where it returns to loading station 310 to repeat the
process. Id. col. 3 ll. 20–24.
Independent claim 1 of the ’194 patent and independ-
ent claims 1 and 18 of the ’505 patent are representative
for the issues on appeal. Claim 1 of the ’194 patent reads,
in relevant part:
1. A material handling system for delivering a
plurality of items to or from a plurality of destina-
tion areas, comprising:
a plurality of delivery vehicles for delivering item
to the destination areas, wherein the destination
areas are arranged into a first series of columns
extending generally vertically and a second series
of columns extending generally vertically, . . .
a track for guiding the delivery vehicles to the des-
tination areas, wherein the track is positioned be-
tween the first series of columns and the second
series of columns so that a delivery vehicle can
move vertically between the first series of columns
and the second series of columns, and wherein
when a delivery vehicle is stopped at a point along
the track, the transfer mechanism can transfer an
item forwardly between the vehicle and a destina-
tion area in the first series of columns and the
transfer mechanism can transfer an item rear-
wardly between the vehicle and a destination in
the second series of columns;
Case: 24-1193 Document: 58 Page: 4 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 4 of 22 --

HC ROBOTICS v. ITC 5
. . . .
Id. col. 19 ll. 37–67 (emphasis added). Claim 1 of the ’505
patent reads:
1. A delivery vehicle operable with a material
handling system having a plurality of destination
areas and a guide system, wherein the delivery
vehicle comprises:
a loading mechanism for loading an item onto the
delivery vehicle, wherein the loading mechanism
comprises:
a conveyor having a length forming a substantial-
ly horizontal surface for receiving an item to be
conveyed to one of the destination areas; and
a load controller for controlling operation of the
conveyor to control the position of the item on the
vehicle;
a motor for driving the vehicle to one of the desti-
nation areas;
a drive system cooperable with the guide system to
guide the vehicle to one of the destination areas,
wherein the drive system is configured to maintain
the orientation of the vehicle relative to the horizon
as the vehicle changes from a horizontal direction
of travel to a vertical direction of travel.
’505 patent col. 20 ll. 1–29 (emphases added). As relevant
to this appeal, claim 18 of the ’505 patent differs from
claim 1 only with respect to the preamble, which reads:
18. A delivery vehicle operable with a material
handling system having a guide system compris-
ing a track positioned along a plurality of destina-
tion areas, wherein the delivery vehicle comprises:
. . . .
Case: 24-1193 Document: 58 Page: 5 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 5 of 22 --

HC ROBOTICS v. ITC 6
Id. col. 21 l. 30–col. 22 l. 18 (emphasis added).
HC Robotics manufactures and imports warehouse
automation products, including the Omnisort Gen 2, to
the United States. The Omnisort Gen 2 is an automated
system designed to sort items into bins that are disposed
on a wall, commonly referred to as an “automated put
wall” system. The system contains two parallel walls of
bins to hold packages and uses a robotic vehicle to deliver
packages to the appropriate bin. Directly between the bin
walls are layers of stationary horizontal track and on
either end are lift structures, or elevators, to allow the
delivery vehicle to travel vertically within the system.
During operation, the vehicle takes in a package, travels
via the horizontal track to the ascending lift, travels to
the height of its destination bin using the lift, traverses
the horizontal track to its destination bin, delivers its
package, and then returns to the staging area via the
descending lift. The system operates as a one-way loop
where the vehicle ascends via the lift on one end of the
system and descends via the lift on the opposite end. See
HC Robotics Br. 16–23 (depicting the operation of the
system in a series of figures and images).
Case: 24-1193 Document: 58 Page: 6 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 6 of 22 --

HC ROBOTICS v. ITC 7
Id. at 26 (figure from an Omnisort Gen 2 installation
manual depicting the overall system). In the above fig-
ure, the lifts can be seen on the same plane as the hori-
zontal tracks directly between the bin walls, but there are
no bins directly on either side of the lifts and the vehicle
cannot deliver a package into a bin while on the lift.
OPEX filed a complaint with the Commission alleging
that the Omnisort Gen 2 infringed the ’194 patent, the
’505 patent, and two additional patents not at issue on
appeal. The Commission instituted an investigation.
During the investigation, the administrative law judge
(“the ALJ”) expressly construed “track” for the ’194 patent
and the ’505 patent, and “drive system” and “guide sys-
tem” for the ’505 patent. See Initial Determination, 2023
WL 3093548, at *14–26. In all three instances, the ALJ
rejected HC Robotics’ narrowing constructions and ap-
plied the plain and ordinary meaning to the terms. Id.
The ALJ did not expressly construe “between” for the ’194
patent; however, during his infringement analysis of
claim 1, he did determine that “between” was not to be
interpreted so narrowly as to require tracks exclusively
contained “within the three-dimensional volume con-
strained by the outline of the array of bins,” as suggested
by HC Robotics, because such a narrow construction
would read the preferred embodiment out of the claims of
the ’194 patent. Id. at *33.
Applying the above constructions, the ALJ initially
determined that the Omnisort Gen 2 infringed claims 1
and 5 of the ’194 patent, id. at *30–37, and claims 1–5, 7–
9, 11–13, 15, 16, and 18–20 of the ’505 patent, id. at *41–
50. The Commission reviewed only the economic prong of
the initial determination, and therefore the initial deter-
mination that Omnisort Gen 2 infringed both the ’194 and
’505 patents became the final determination of the Com-
mission. See Commission Opinion, 2023 WL 5426449, at
*3. On review, the Commission determined that there
had been a violation of Section 337, id. at *1, *29, and
Case: 24-1193 Document: 58 Page: 7 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 7 of 22 --

HC ROBOTICS v. ITC 8
thus issued a limited exclusion order as well as cease and
desist orders, see J.A. 53–74.
HC Robotics timely appealed, and we have jurisdic-
tion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6).
D ISCUSSION
Our review of the Commission’s final determination
of a Section 337 violation is governed by the standards of
the Administrative Procedure Act. 19 U.S.C. § 1337(c);
Ajinomoto Co. v. ITC, 597 F.3d 1267, 1272 (Fed. Cir.
2010). Under 5 U.S.C. § 706, we review the Commission's
legal determinations de novo and its factual findings,
including those adopted from the ALJ’s initial determina-
tions, for substantial evidence. Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech
Co. v. ITC, 936 F.3d 1353, 1358–59 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Claim construction is a question of law and therefore
reviewed de novo, and it includes, when appropriate, any
implicit construction of a claim limitation as part of the
Commission’s infringement analysis. See Linear Tech.
Corp. v. ITC, 566 F.3d 1049, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (ex-
plaining that “although the Commission did not explicitly
address the ‘monitoring current’ limitation under its
claim construction section, it effectively construed the
limitation. We thus address the parties' dispute regarding
this limitation as a claim construction issue.”).
On appeal, HC Robotics argues that the Commission
erred in its construction of “between” and “track” with
respect to the ’194 patent and in its construction of “drive
system” and “guide system” with respect to the ’505
patent. It argues that under a proper construction, the
undisputed structure and operation of the Omnisort Gen
2 cannot infringe. HC Robotics does not dispute in-
fringement of the ’194 patent or the ’505 patent under the
Commission’s construction. We address each claim con-
struction argument in turn.
Case: 24-1193 Document: 58 Page: 8 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 8 of 22 --

HC ROBOTICS v. ITC 9
I.
The Commission did not expressly construe the term
“between” but did address its scope in determining that
the Omnisort Gen 2 satisfies the limitation of claim 1 of
the ’194 patent that requires:
wherein the track is positioned between the first
series of columns and the second series of columns
so that a delivery vehicle can move vertically be-
tween the first series of columns and the second
series of columns, . . . .
See Initial Determination, 2023 WL 3093548, at *32–35
(citing ’194 patent col. 19 ll. 48–52) (emphasis added).
The Commission then found that the lifts were posi-
tioned “between” the two vertical planes established by
the two arrays of bins “so that” the vehicle could move
vertically between the arrays as required by the claim.
Id. at *33. Applying the ordinary meaning of “between,”
the Commission found that the lifts were between the
bins despite extending beyond them because they were
part of the vertical loop track sandwiched between the
walls of the bins. The Commission analogized the vertical
loop formed by the horizontal sections of track and the
lifts to a piece of lettuce between two slices of bread in a
sandwich, where the edges of the lettuce extend beyond
the edges of the bread. Id. The Commission further
noted that a narrower construction—requiring the lifts to
be located “within the three-dimensional volume con-
strained by the outline of the array of bins”—would read
out the preferred embodiment of the ’194 patent disclosed
in Figure 1 because portions of the track, such as upper
rail 135 and lower rail 140, are located above and below
the columns of bins, respectively. Id.
HC Robotics argues that the Commission’s construc-
tion of “between” fails to comport with the ordinary mean-
ing of the term, the specification, and the prosecution
Case: 24-1193 Document: 58 Page: 9 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 9 of 22 --

HC ROBOTICS v. ITC 10
history. As a result of that error, HC Robotics’ argument
continues, the Commission erred in finding that the lifts
of the Omnisort Gen 2 were “between” the first series of
columns and the second series of columns because they
were not within the physical space separating the col-
umns. We disagree.
According to HC Robotics, the ordinary meaning of
“between” is “the space separating two objects,” HC
Robotics’ Br. 35 (offering an example dictionary defini-
tion). HC Robotics alleges that the Commission improper-
ly rewrote claim 1 by broadening the definition of
“between” to include the “two imaginary planes extending
out beyond the edges of the first series of columns and the
second series of columns.” Id.
But HC Robotics’ dictionary definition actually sup-
ports the Commission’s interpretation. As part of the
sentence defining between, the dictionary definition
provides an example—“between New York and Chicago”—
that clearly contemplates including planes extending out
beyond the space directly separating two objects. This
understanding seems correct. Indeed, as another exam-
ple, if one were to say that they sat between first and
home plate at a baseball game, one would not assume
they were literally sitting in the infield on the first base
line. We therefore disagree with HC Robotics’ argument
relating to the ordinary meaning of “between.”
HC Robotics further argues that the specification
supports its narrower construction of “between.” Specifi-
cally, HC Robotics points to sections of the specification
that “repeatedly describe the vehicle traveling vertically
downward in the space separating the bin columns.” Id.
at 36 (citing ’194 patent col. 3 ll. 15–21, col. 5 ll. 45–50,
col. 14 ll. 34–39). According to HC Robotics, the Commis-
sion erred in its determination that the narrower defini-
tion of “between” would read the preferred embodiment of
Figure 1 out of the claim. Id. at 40. HC Robotics argues
Case: 24-1193 Document: 58 Page: 10 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 10 of 22 --

HC ROBOTICS v. ITC 11
that “the track positioning element of claim 1 is focused
on the portion of the track that enables the vertical
movement of the vehicle” and therefore the location of the
horizontal upper rail is immaterial. Id. at 40. Again, we
disagree.
First, the “track positioning” element of claim 1 is not
solely focused on the vertical movement of the vehicle as
argued by HC Robotics. Claim 1 refers broadly to “a track
for guiding the delivery vehicles to the destination areas”
as a whole rather than any specific portion of said track.
See ’194 patent col. 19 ll. 48–49. The specification sup-
ports a broad understanding of “track” by referring to the
“track 110” as including both horizontal legs 135 and 140
and vertical legs 130. Id. col. 3 ll. 5–9. Additionally,
claims that depend from claim 1 go on to further narrow
“the track” to include specific configurations of vertical
and/or horizontal sections of track; therefore, “the track”
of claim 1 must be interpreted broadly enough to not
exclude the elements of the dependent claims. See e.g., id.
col. 20 ll. 1–4. With that in mind, the claim continues
“wherein the track is positioned between the first . . . and
the second series of columns so that a delivery vehicle can
move vertically between the first . . . and the second series
of columns.” Id. col. 19 ll. 49–52. All that is required is
for the track to be positioned “so that” the vehicle can
move vertically between the columns. There is no re-
quirement for any specific configuration of track or that
the entirety of the track is positioned in the space directly
separating columns of bins, as required by HC Robotics’
proposed construction of “between.”
Looking to the preferred embodiment described in
Figure 1, that distinction becomes clearer. As we have
consistently held, an interpretation of a claim that ex-
cludes the preferred embodiment “is rarely, if ever, correct
and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.”
See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,
1583–84 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The specification describes
Case: 24-1193 Document: 58 Page: 11 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 11 of 22 --

HC ROBOTICS v. ITC 12
Figure 1 as including “horizontal upper rail 135” and
“horizontal lower rail 140,” which are located above and
below the columns of bins respectively. Applying HC
Robotics’ narrow construction of “between,” i.e., “the space
separating two objects,” would mean these horizontal legs
of the track are not “between the first series of columns
and the second series of columns” as described in the
claim. In fact, HC Robotics’ own expert witness admitted
as much. See J.A. 10739 (Dr. Howle agreeing that upper
rail 135 and lower rail 140 would not be “between” the
columns of bins under HC Robotics’ proposed interpreta-
tion of “between”); see also Initial Determination, 2023
WL 3093548, at *34. Under HC Robotics’ construction,
the preferred embodiment of Figure 1 would be excluded
from claim 1 because those horizontal sections of the track
would not be “between” the first and second series of
columns. HC Robotics has failed to offer the “highly
persuasive” evidence to support such a conclusion.
Finally, with respect to the construction of “between,”
HC Robotics argues that the prosecution history of the
’194 patent further confirms its limiting construction of
between. See HC Robotics’ Br. 37. HC Robotics points to
the Patent Office’s rejection of pending claim 1 as antici-
pated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
2005/0047895 (“Lert”) where “OPEX amended claim 1 to
add a limitation requiring that the track be positioned so
that ‘a delivery vehicle can move vertically between’ the
first and second series of columns.” Id. (citing J.A. 497,
518–19). According to HC Robotics the accompanying
remarks distinguishing the amended claim confirm that
the track must be positioned to allow the vehicle to move
vertically in the space separating the two series of col-
umns, and not beyond the edges of those columns. Id. at
37–38 (citing J.A. 527–28).
HC Robotics is arguing for a construction of “between”
that is narrower than the plain and ordinary meaning of
the term as read in light of the specification, as discussed
Case: 24-1193 Document: 58 Page: 12 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 12 of 22 --

HC ROBOTICS v. ITC 13
above. But the prosecution history may only limit the
term if there was “a clear and unmistakable disavowal of
scope during prosecution.” See Purdue Pharma L.P. v.
Endo Pharms. Inc., 438 F.3d 1123, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
In distinguishing Lert, OPEX noted that “the Lert ’895
system is like a parking garage” where “the vehicle can-
not move vertically to store or retrieve an item that is in a
column above or below the level that the vehicle is on.
The vehicle must drive away from the destination area
and over to a ramp.” J.A. 527. The remarks then contrast
a variety of features of the claimed system, including that
the “track is located between the two series of columns so
that the vehicle can move vertically between” the col-
umns, that “the system may include a front [and rear]
series of columns of destination areas,” that the vehicle
“can move in the space between the front and rear col-
umns,” and that when stopped at a point along the track,
the vehicle can transfer an item forwardly or rearwardly
to a destination area. J.A. 528. It then notes that “Lert
895 does not teach or suggest a system having such
features.” Id. (emphasis added).
Having referenced a multitude of distinctions between
Lert and the claimed inventions, it is difficult to read any
one of these features as a clear and unmistakable waiver
of scope necessary to limit the construction of “between.”
See Comput. Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d
1366, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“a multitude of distinctions
may serve to make any single distinction in the group less
clear and unmistakable as the point of distinction over
prior art and as a critical defining point for the invention
as a whole”). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in
the art could reasonably read the prosecution history as
referring to loading column 300 in Figures 2–4 as a verti-
cal track between the first and second series of columns.
As shown in Figures 3 and 4, for example, loading column
300 is physically between the first series of columns 190
and the second series of columns 190 as that term is
Case: 24-1193 Document: 58 Page: 13 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 13 of 22 --

HC ROBOTICS v. ITC 14
broadly understood in the baseball example above. More-
over, the specification describes loading column 300 as
having a vertical vehicle track, ’194 patent col. 13 ll. 40–
46, and the prosecution history says “[t]he vehicle track is
located between the two series of columns” and refers to
Figures 2–4, J.A. 528. HC Robotics’ arguments regarding
the prosecution history are therefore unpersuasive.
Because we find no basis to limit the scope of “between” to
“the space between two objects” as argued by HC Robot-
ics, we see no error in the Commission’s finding that the
Omnisort Gen 2 satisfied the relevant limitations of claim
1 of the ’194 patent.
Woven throughout its arguments regarding the prop-
er construction of “between,” HC Robotics also seems to
argue that the claim requires that the vehicle “can deliver
an item to a destination area during its vertical path of
travel.” See HC Robotics Br. 35–36, 38, 43. However, HC
Robotics did not appear to make this argument to the
Commission, see J.A. 11061–62; J.A. 11507–22; J.A.
12990–13013; J.A. 13348; J.A. 13587–93, the Initial
Determination didn’t address it, see Initial Determination,
2023 WL 3093548, at *35–36, and, in any event, we see no
basis to support such a requirement. The relevant portion
of the claim merely requires that “when a delivery vehicle
is stopped at a point along the track, the transfer mecha-
nism can transfer an item forwardly [and] rearwardly”
and nothing more. ’194 patent col. 19 ll. 53–59. As such,
we decline to adopt HC Robotics’ claim construction.
II.
The Commission expressly construed the term “track”
as applied to both the ’194 patent and the ’505 patent to
have its plain and ordinary meaning such that it would be
satisfied by a system that “defines a pathway, course, or
route.” See Initial Determination, 2023 WL 3093548, at
*24–26. In doing so, it rejected HC Robotics’ proposed
construction of “[o]ne or more linear sections comprising
Case: 24-1193 Document: 58 Page: 14 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 14 of 22 --

HC ROBOTICS v. ITC 15
components that interact with a drive system.” See id. at
*24. On appeal, HC Robotics now argues that “track,” in
the context of the ’194 patent, should be limited to “a fixed
structure that guides a moving vehicle.” HC Robotics’ Br.
43. It argues that the Commission erred in construing
“track” to encompass a movable platform that lifts up a
stationary vehicle, such as the lifts of the Omnisort Gen 2.
Because we find that these arguments fail on the merits,
we need not determine if they were forfeited.
The relevant portion of claim 1 of the ’194 patent
reads:
a track for guiding the delivery vehicles to the
destination areas, wherein the track is positioned
between the first series of columns and the second
series of columns so that a delivery vehicle can
move vertically between the first series of columns
and the second series of columns, and wherein
when a delivery vehicle is stopped at a point along
the track, the transfer mechanism can transfer an
item forwardly between the vehicle and a destina-
tion area in the first series of columns and the
transfer mechanism can transfer an item rear-
wardly between the vehicle and a destination in
the second series of columns;
’194 patent col. 19 ll. 48–59.
HC Robotics argues that the plain language of claim 1
implies that a “track” is a fixed structure that guides a
moving vehicle. For example, it argues that “‘guiding’
connotes a stationary structure that affects a moving
vehicle’s direction of travel and differs from the act of
‘carrying’ or ‘lifting’ that is performed by a movable plat-
form.” HC Robotics’ Br. 44; see also id. at 45 (arguing
that “a delivery vehicle can move vertically” connotes a
fixed structure that permits vehicle movement); id. at 45
(arguing that a “vehicle stopped at a point along the
track” connotes a stationary structure because a vehicle
Case: 24-1193 Document: 58 Page: 15 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 15 of 22 --

HC ROBOTICS v. ITC 16
could not stop while being carried upward on a lift); id. at
46 (arguing that the requirement that “each vehicle”
include “a power source for driving the vehicle” does not
contemplate stationary vehicles conveyed upward on a
lift). By arguing that these limitations merely “connote”
certain additional requirements, HC Robotics tacitly
admits that the express language of the claims does not.
HC Robotics appears to be arguing that claim 1 should be
read with a variety of additional negative limitations,
such as “a [fixed] track for guiding [not lifting or carrying]
the delivery vehicles to the destination areas.” We see no
justification in the claim language for adding these addi-
tional “connotated” restrictions onto the claim.
HC Robotics argues that its new construction of
“track” is supported by the specification because “[t]he
only description of a track in the specification is a fixed
structure that guides a moving vehicle.” HC Robotics’ Br.
46. However, this argument is fundamentally flawed as it
is well established that “[e]ven when the specification
describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the
patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee
has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim
scope using ‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion or
restriction.’” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358
F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted);
see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[W]e have expressly rejected the
contention that if a patent describes only a single embod-
iment, the claims of the patent must be construed as
being limited to that embodiment.”).
Nothing in claim 1 expresses a clear manifestation to
exclude movable platforms from the ordinary meaning of
“track.” Furthermore, the statement that the “only de-
scription of a track in the specification is a fixed struc-
ture” is inaccurate. The specification expressly states
that “[t]he track 110 includes gates 180,” ’194 patent col. 3
ll. 16–17, and then goes on to describe the gates as a
Case: 24-1193 Document: 58 Page: 16 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 16 of 22 --

HC ROBOTICS v. ITC 17
movable feature that “pivots between a first position and
a second position,” id. at col. 6 ll. 40–41. HC Robotics’
argument that the specification supports limiting the
“track” to a fixed structure is therefore unpersuasive. See
also Initial Determination, 2023 WL 3093548, at *24
(“Respondents seek to exclude the curved portions of the
track referred to in the specification as ‘intersections,’ and
the pivotable sections referred to as ‘gates.’” (emphasis
added)).
Next HC Robotics argues that the prosecution history
from two related patents, U.S. Patent 7,861,844 (“the ’844
patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,687,883 (“the ’883 patent”),
supports interpreting “track” as a fixed structure. During
prosecution of the ’844 patent, the Examiner rejected
pending claim 34 as anticipated by U.S. Patent No.
3,800,963 (“Holland”). J.A. 841. In distinguishing Hol-
land, OPEX described the Holland system as “a large []
material handling system that simply moves back and
forth along a horizontal t[r]ack on the ground [where] a
carriage on the vehicle is raised to the proper height by a
plurality of cables.” J.A. 860. OPEX distinguished its
own invention by stating that it provided “a plurality of
vehicles that are configured to follow a track system along
vertical and horizontal directions” in addition to several
other features. J.A. 861. According to HC Robotics,
OPEX made a clear distinction between a track and a
carriage that lifts up a stationary vehicle via cables with
the above statements. We disagree.
First, the description of Holland states that it is a car-
riage on the vehicle being lifted by the cables, and not a
vehicle on a carriage being lifted by cables. Furthermore,
the description of the claimed inventions states that a
plurality of vehicles follows “a track system along vertical
and horizontal directions.” J.A. 861. Nothing in these
statements expressly excludes a lift or elevator from being
part of the “track system”; in fact, the primary distinction
seems to be the “releasable retainers” described in the
Case: 24-1193 Document: 58 Page: 17 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 17 of 22 --

HC ROBOTICS v. ITC 18
subsequent sentences. See id. The statements regarding
Holland thus do not rise to the level of “a clear and un-
mistakable disavowal of scope during prosecution.” See
Purdue Pharma, 438 F.3d at 1136.
During the prosecution of the ’883 patent, the Exam-
iner rejected pending claim 1 as anticipated by U.S.
Patent No. 6,149,366 to Deandrea (“Deandrea”). J.A.
1008. OPEX argued that “Deandrea is directed to a
system that includes a plurality of horizontal tracks and a
plurality of elevators to raise and lower the vehicles
between the different levels of the system. The Deandrea
system does not include vertical tracks which the vehicles
travel along to move from level to level.” J.A. 1061. HC
Robotics argues that OPEX made “a clear distinction
between a track and an elevator that lifts a stationary
vehicle” with the above statements. Generally, “a prose-
cution disclaimer will only apply to a subsequent patent if
that patent contains the same claim limitation as its
predecessor.” Regents of Univ. of Minnesota v. AGA Med.
Corp., 717 F.3d 929, 943 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Here the claim
of the ’883 patent was directed to the narrower subject
matter of “a drive element that interacts with . . . the
vertical track sections.” J.A. 1051. Claim 1 of the ’194
patent contains neither the “drive system” nor the “verti-
cal track sections” described in the identified prosecution
history. It is therefore of little value in understanding the
more broadly described “track [] positioned … so that a
delivery vehicle can move vertically” of claim 1. We find
HC Robotics arguments with respect to the prosecution
history unpersuasive.
Having reviewed HC Robotics’ arguments with re-
spect to the ’194 patent, we see no reversible error in the
Commission’s interpretation of the plain and ordinary
meaning of “between” and “track” as reflected in its
infringement analysis. HC Robotics does not dispute the
Commission’s infringement finding under its construction,
Case: 24-1193 Document: 58 Page: 18 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 18 of 22 --

HC ROBOTICS v. ITC 19
see HC Robotics Br. 53–54, and we therefore affirm the
Commission with respect to the ’194 patent.
III.
The Commission expressly construed both “drive sys-
tem” and “guide system” of the ’505 patent to have their
plain and ordinary meaning. In doing so, it rejected HC
Robotics’ proposed construction of “drive system” as a
“pinion gear configured to mate with engagement ele-
ments,” and “guide system” as a “component configured
with pinion gear teeth configured to mate with the drive
system.” Initial Determination, 2023 WL 3093548, at
*14–23. Claim 1 of the ’505 patent reads, in relevant
part:
a drive system cooperable with the guide system
to guide the vehicle to one of the destination are-
as, wherein the drive system is configured to
maintain the orientation of the vehicle relative to
the horizon as the vehicle changes from a horizon-
tal direction of travel to a vertical direction of
travel.
’505 patent col. 20 ll. 24–29.2
On appeal, HC Robotics again argues that neither the
Commission’s plain and ordinary meaning nor its own
earlier proposed construction is proper. Rather, it now
argues that the “drive system cooperable with the guide
system” limitation should “be limited to a system in the
vehicle that propels the vehicle forward along a fixed
structure that guides the moving vehicle while maintain-
ing the orientation of the vehicle as it changes from a
horizontal to a vertical direction of travel.” HC Robotics
2 Claim 18 of the ’505 patent contains the identical
limitation. See ’505 patent col. 22 ll. 13–18.
Case: 24-1193 Document: 58 Page: 19 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 19 of 22 --

HC ROBOTICS v. ITC 20
Br. 55. According to HC Robotics, the Commission erred
in interpreting the above limitation to “encompass sta-
tionary wheels on a stationary vehicle being carried
upward or downward by a lift.” Id. at 56. Because we
find that these arguments fail on the merits, we need not
determine if they were forfeited.
According to HC Robotics, the plain language of
claims 1 and 18 requires that the “drive system” is part of
the vehicle and is the only source of motive force for the
vehicle, whereas the guide system is a fixed structure that
guides the direction of travel of the vehicle, without
“forcibly convey[ing] a stationary vehicle upward or
downward.” Id. at 56–57. We disagree.
The claim requires two things of the “drive system,”
that it is “cooperable with the guide system to guide the
vehicle to one of the destination areas” and that it is
“configured to maintain the orientation of the vehicle
relative to the horizon as the vehicle changes from a
horizontal direction of travel to a vertical direction of
travel.” It does not require that the “drive system” pro-
vide the only motive force to the vehicle, and it does not
require that the drive system is powering the vehicles’
movement during the transition from a horizontal direc-
tion of travel to a vertical direction. The claim does not
prescribe how the drive system and guide system interact,
simply that they are cooperable to guide the vehicle to one
of the destination areas.
HC Robotics again argues that the claim terms should
be limited to the preferred embodiments disclosed in the
specification. See Id. at 58–60. We again reject that
argument for reasons similar to those discussed with
respect to “track.” See Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 906.
HC Robotics again points to the prosecution history
from the related ’844 and ’883 patents. As noted earlier,
during prosecution of the ’844 patent, the Examiner
rejected pending claim 34 as anticipated by Holland. J.A.
Case: 24-1193 Document: 58 Page: 20 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 20 of 22 --

HC ROBOTICS v. ITC 21
841. HC Robotics argues that the “drive system” element
recited by pending claim 34 was nearly identical to the
“drive system” limitation of claims 1 and 18 of the ’505
patent. HC Robotics Br. 60 (citing J.A. 849). It argues
that OPEX distinguished Holland over the claimed sys-
tem because Holland was “raised to the proper height by a
plurality of cables,” and thus demonstrates “that such a
drive system did not encompass a stationary vehicle being
lifted up by a moveable platform via cables.” Id. at 60–61.
Again, we disagree. The description of Holland offered by
OPEX states that “a carriage on the vehicle is raised to
the proper height by a plurality of cables,” and not a
vehicle on a carriage is being lifted by cables. See J.A.
861. Again, these statements cannot be considered a
“clear and unmistakable” disavowal of claim scope.
Finally, HC Robotics again refers to the rejection over
Deandrea in the prosecution of the ’883 patent. It argues
that OPEX distinguished Deandrea over the claimed
invention based on the former’s use of elevators to carry a
vehicle vertically. Id. at 62. However, the distinction
from the claimed system was that the “Deandrea system
[did] not include vertical tracks which the vehicles travel
along to move from level to level.” J.A. 1061. The refer-
enced “vertical track sections” were expressly claimed in
the ’883 patent, J.A. 1051, and no such element exists in
the limitations of claim 1 and 18 of the ’505 patent. We
therefore find HC Robotics’ arguments with respect to the
prosecution history unpersuasive.
Having reviewed HC Robotics’ arguments with re-
spect to the ’505 patent, we see no reversible error in the
Commission’s interpretation of the plain and ordinary
meaning of “drive system” and “guide system” as reflected
in its infringement analysis. HC Robotics does not dis-
pute the Commission’s infringement finding for the ’505
patent under the Commission’s construction. See HC
Robotics Br. 63–70.
Case: 24-1193 Document: 58 Page: 21 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 21 of 22 --

HC ROBOTICS v. ITC 22
CONCLUSION
We have considered HC Robotics remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive or forfeited. For the
foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the Commis-
sion.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-1193 Document: 58 Page: 22 Filed: 08/22/2025

-- 22 of 22 --