FOREMOST IN PACKAGING SYSTEMS, INC. (Doing business as Envirocooler) v. Cold Chain Technologies, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-1582
FOREMOST IN PACKAGING SYSTEMS, INC.
(Doing business as Envirocooler),
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COLD CHAIN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
.
James C. Brooks, Attorney, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, of Los Angeles,
California, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Hope E. Melville
and Mark J. Shean, of Irvine, California.
Edward R. Schwartz, Attorney, Christie, Parker & Hale, LLP, of Pasadena,
California, argued for defendant-appellee.
Appealed from: United States District Court for the Central District of California
Judge James V. Selna

-- 1 of 6 --

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2006-1582
FOREMOST IN PACKAGING SYSTEMS, INC.
(Doing business as Envirocooler),
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COLD CHAIN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________________
DECIDED: May 2, 2007
______________________________
Before NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and PROST, Circuit
Judge.
FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
In this patent infringement appeal, the appellant Foremost In Packaging
Systems, Inc. (“Foremost”), challenges the district court’s (1) construction of certain
patent terms and (2) ruling that the appellee Cold Chain Technologies, Inc. (“Cold
Chain”)’s products do not infringe those claims as thus construed. We affirm.
I
This case involves insulated shipping containers designed to carry items such as
pharmaceuticals and human tissue, which must be transported at specific temperatures.
The containers consist of an insulated cover and an insulated body that includes
separate areas in which the transported product and the coolant are placed (described
in the patent as “cavities”). Claim 9 of Foremost’s United States Patent No. 5,294,302

-- 2 of 6 --

(the “’302 patent”) covers “an insulated shipping container for transporting a
temperature sensitive product . . . comprising . . . an insulated block extending from” “an
insulated cover adopted to engage the open top of the open end of the insulated body.”
Claim 13 contains similar language; the differences in the words of the two claims are
irrelevant to the issues before us. Both claims state
the insulated block being adapted to slidably engage the
coolant cavity, thereby the coolant and the insulated block
together substantially filling the coolant cavity.
The district court construed this limitation to require that the cover block be inserted into
the coolant cavity in order to “slidably engage” it. See Foremost in Packaging Sys., Inc.
v. Cold Chain Techs., Inc., No. SACV 05-24-JVS(MLGx), slip op. at 8-9 (C.D. Cal. June
15, 2006).
II
A.1 The issue before us can best be explained by reference to the following
diagrams. Figure A is a simplified version of Figure 1 of the ’302 patent, which the
patent describes as a preferred embodiment. Figure B is a drawing included in
Foremost’s opening brief, and not challenged by Cold Chain, of the latter’s insulated
cooler (“the Kool Temp GTS”) that Foremost contends infringes the ’302 patent.
2006-1582 2

-- 3 of 6 --

Fig. A–Simplified Version of Figure 1 of ’302 Patent Fig. B– Drawing of KoolTemp GTS
The square insulated block in the cover of Figure A contains four horizontal
extensions consisting of rectangular blocks. When the cover is placed on the container,
these four blocks descend into the four coolant cavities. The question is whether
Claims 9 and 13 require that they so extend.
We agree with the district court that the claims so require. The claims state that
when the insulated block “slidably engage[s]” the coolant cavity, the result is that “the
coolant and the insulated block together substantially fill [ ] the coolant cavity.”
Focusing primarily on the patent words “slidably engage the coolant cavity,” Foremost
contends that even though the insulated block does not extend down into the coolant
cavities, this limitation of the claim is satisfied as long as the insulated block “slidably
engages” the coolant cavity.
If the insulating block does not extend down into the coolant cavities, the coolant
and the insulated block cannot “together” substantially fill the cavity. In that situation the
only way the coolant cavity would be substantially filled would be if the coolant itself
performs that function. The insulated block would have no role in that process. The
2006-1582 3

-- 4 of 6 --

claims, however, require that the two elements of the container perform that filling
function “together,” not that one of them do so separately.
Our interpretation of these claims rests upon their language. It does not import
into the language, as Foremost contends, the preferred embodiment shown in Figure 1
of the patent.
2. The district court correctly concluded that, under its claim construction, the
KoolTemp GTS does not infringe the ’302 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of
equivalents. There is no literal infringement because in the KoolTemp GTS the
insulated block and the coolant do not “together” substantially fill the coolant cavity,
since the insulated block merely covers the opening of, but does not extend into, the
coolant cavity. In these particular circumstances, Foremost cannot establish
infringement by invoking the doctrine of equivalents. Cf. Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic
Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1016-20 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
B. The other claim involved in this appeal, Claim 22, covers
An insulating shipping container for transporting a
temperature sensitive product therein, compromising . . . an
insulated cover adapted to engage the open end of the
insulated body and having a configuration for minimizing air
spaces within the cavities.
The district court correctly construed this claim as requiring that part of the cover
be inserted into the coolant cavity. The only way the insulated cover can have “a
configuration for minimizing air spaces within the cavities” is if the cover is designed so
that part of it extends downward into and therefore fills part of the coolant cavity. If the
cover merely covers the top of the cavity but does not extend down into it, it cannot
“minimize” airspace within the cavity. It can accomplish the latter result only if it extends
2006-1582 4

-- 5 of 6 --

into the cavity, since that is the only way it can occupy and thus reduce air space in the
cavity.
The district court also correctly granted summary judgment that the KoolTemp
GTS does not infringe Claim 22. Our discussion of non-infringement of Claims 9 and 13
also is applicable to Claim 22 and requires the same result. There is no literal
infringement because, as shown in Figure B in the diagram above, KoolTemp’s
insulated cover does not extend downward into the coolant cavity, but merely covers its
top. As in the case of Claims 9 and 13, Foremost cannot establish infringement by
invoking the doctrine of equivalents.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the district court granting Cold Chain summary judgment of
noninfringement of Claims 9, 13, and 22 is
AFFIRMED.
2006-1582 5

-- 6 of 6 --