Iqris Technologies LLC v. Point Blank Enterprises, Inc., National Molding, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC., NATIONAL
MOLDING, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2023-2062
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida in No. 0:21-cv-61976-BB,
Judge Beth Bloom.
______________________
Decided: March 7, 2025
______________________
J AMES L EWIS RYERSON, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Flor-
ham Park, NJ, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also repre-
sented by BARRY SCHINDLER, D OUGLAS R. W EIDER.
ROBERT F LUSKEY , II, Hodgson Russ LLP, Buffalo, NY,
argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by
MELISSA SUBJECK.
______________________
Before L OURIE, L INN, and STOLL , Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 03/07/2025

-- 1 of 13 --

IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC. 2
STOLL , Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant IQRIS Technologies LLC (“IQRIS”)
sued Defendants-Appellees Point Blank Enterprises, Inc.
(“Point Blank”) and National Molding, LLC (“National
Molding”) (collectively, “Defendants”) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida for in-
fringement of two of IQRIS’s patents. Point Blank and Na-
tional Molding moved for summary judgment of
noninfringement, arguing that the accused products lacked
a “pull cord” as required by the asserted patent claims. The
district court granted the motion, concluding that the two
accused products did not infringe literally or under the doc-
trine of equivalents as a matter of law. IQRIS appeals, ar-
guing the summary judgment rests on an erroneous
construction of the claim term “pull cord.” Because the dis-
trict court’s construction improperly limited “pull cord” to
a directly pulled cord that lacks a handle, we vacate the
grant of summary judgment and remand for further con-
sideration consistent with this opinion.
BACKGROUND
I
The asserted patents in this case, U.S. Patent
Nos. 7,814,567 (“the ’567 patent”) and 8,256,020 (“the
’020 patent”), share a common specification. The asserted
patents relate to quick release systems on tactical vests
worn by soldiers, law enforcement officers, and other first
responders. As the specification explains, if a first re-
sponder wearing a protective vest is injured, she may need
to remove the vest quickly to receive medical attention. Al-
ternatively, a soldier in danger of drowning due to being
weighed down by the tactical vest needs to be able to re-
move it quickly.
The background section of the specification describes
prior art tactical vests that use fasteners such as Velcro,
snaps, or buckles, requiring a user to manipulate several
Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 2 Filed: 03/07/2025

-- 2 of 13 --

IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC. 3
fasteners, typically one at a time, making removal time
consuming or impossible. The background also describes
conventional “cutaway vests” with three sections—front,
back, and cummerbund—attached together by cables. To
remove the vest, the user pulls a handle that is attached to
the cables and withdraws the cables from the vest thereby
disassembling the vest sections. Reassembly requires
manually rerouting a cable through a series of rings and
loops to bring the various vest components back together.
The specification explains reassembly of cutaway systems
“can be a time consuming and tedious process.” ’567 patent
col. 2 ll. 2–3.
The asserted patents purport to overcome the problems
in these conventional vests by providing a protective gar-
ment with “a reduction in operating parts, faster release,
and quicker reassembly than the systems currently in use.”
Id. at col. 2 ll. 5–7. As shown in Figure 1B of the asserted
patents (reproduced below), tactical ballistic vest (100) has
a front portion (10) and connectors—each connector includ-
ing a hook (13) and an anchor strap (15)—for releasably at-
taching the front portion (10) to a back portion (20) (not
shown).
Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 3 Filed: 03/07/2025

-- 3 of 13 --

IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC. 4
Id. Fig. 1B.
As shown, each releasable hook (13): (a) attaches to an
anchor strap (15), which is affixed to the front portion (10);
and (b) includes a release knob (17) for moving the
hook (13) into an open position. Most relevant here, the
specification discloses that cords (18) and (18a) connect to
release knobs (17) on releasable hooks (13). “[W]hen the
pull cord [(16)] is pulled” the releasable hooks (13) “disen-
gag[e] simultaneously” and the front portion of the vest
completely detaches from the rear portion. Id. at col. 5
ll. 9–12.
Claim 1 of the ’567 patent is representative of the as-
serted claims and recites:
1. A ballistic garment, comprising:
a front panel of the ballistic garment;
a rear panel of the ballistic garment;
a plurality of rings, wherein each of the plurality of
rings is fastened to a first end of a respective
anchor element and each of a second end of
each respective anchor element is fixed to the
rear panel of the ballistic garment;
at least one releasable hook for releasably attach-
ing the front panel of the ballistic garment to
the rear panel of the ballistic garment, wherein
the at least one releasable hook is fastened to
the front panel of the ballistic garment;
wherein each of the plurality of rings is releasably
clasped by the at least one releasable hook;
wherein a cover at least partially covers the plural-
ity of rings and the at least one releasable
hook; and
a pull cord coupled to the at least one releasable
hook, wherein the pull cord actuates the at
Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 4 Filed: 03/07/2025

-- 4 of 13 --

IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC. 5
least one releasable hook to disengage the at
least one releasable hook to which the pull cord
is coupled from the at least two rings to allow
detachment of at least a part of the front panel
of the ballistic garment from at least a part of
the rear panel of the ballistic garment.
Id. at col. 6 ll. 27–51.
II
National Molding manufactures precision-engineered
plastic components, among which are the “Quad Release”
and “Evil Twin” quick-release systems for tactical vests.
Point Blank sells tactical vests that incorporate the Quad
Release and Evil Twin release systems (the “Accused Prod-
ucts”). Quad Release and Evil Twin share many common
features but are not identical.
Both Accused Products include a trigger that sits atop
a base for the trigger, called a trigger manifold. Both also
use “Bowden” cables, which consist of a wire inside a
sheath, where mechanical force is transmitted by move-
ment of the wire within the outer sheath. J.A. 5102. Bicy-
cle brake systems commonly use Bowden cables. In the
Accused Products, multiple Bowden cables are connected
to the trigger. Activation of the trigger on the trigger man-
ifold causes movement of the wires within the sheath,
which in turn disengages the vest by releasing the buckles.
As to the differences between the Accused Products,
Quad Release has four Bowden cables while Evil Twin has
two. Quad Release and Evil Twin also use different trig-
gers. The trigger of Quad Release is a type of lever that,
when moved, pulls the wire inside the Bowden cables,
whereas the Evil Twin trigger is a sliding mechanism that
does the same when moved. Despite these differences,
IQRIS did not raise distinct infringement arguments for
the two Accused Products before the district court.
Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 5 Filed: 03/07/2025

-- 5 of 13 --

IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC. 6
III
The parties disputed the interpretation of the claim
term “pull cord.” IQRIS proposed construing the term as
“a component which, when put into tension, can result in
activating the releasable fastener.” IQRIS Techs. LLC
v. Point Blank Enters., Inc., No. 21-cv-61976, 2022 WL
17176840, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 23, 2022). Point Blank and
National Molding asserted that a pull cord is “a cord on the
exterior of the ballistic garment grasped by a user that is
capable of disengaging the releasable fastener or releasa-
ble hook when a user pulls on the pull cord.” Id. Following
briefing and a Markman hearing, the district court con-
strued “pull cord” as a “cord that can be directly pulled by
a user to disengage a releasable fastener or releasable
hook.” Id. at *4. Although the parties disputed whether
the pull cord was external or internal to the vest, the court
declined to “define pull cord in terms of its location” be-
cause language describing the pull cord as “on the protec-
tive garment,” i.e., external, would improperly read
individual embodiments of the invention into the claims.
Id.1
Point Blank and National Molding then moved for
summary judgment of noninfringement, arguing that the
Accused Products lack a “pull cord” as construed by the dis-
trict court. Addressing literal infringement, the district
court held that the Accused Products’ “trigger manifold” “is
not a ‘cord,’ but rather a rigid structure that consists of a
lever in the Quad Release, and a slide in the Evil Twin.”
IQRIS Techs. LLC v. Point Blank Enters., Inc.,
669 F. Supp. 3d 1256, 1268 (S.D. Fla. 2023). Continuing,
the court determined the Bowden cables on the Accused
Products are entirely internal to the vest and cannot be di-
rectly pulled by a user without ripping into the vest and
1 Neither party challenges this aspect of the district
court’s claim construction.
Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 6 Filed: 03/07/2025

-- 6 of 13 --

IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC. 7
thus held that “neither the Bowden cables nor their inter-
nal wires satisfies the Court’s definition of ‘pull cord.’” Id.
The district court rejected IQRIS’s “attempts to create is-
sues of fact” through expert testimony that the trigger in
the Accused Products acts as a handle to pull on the pull
cord (i.e., internal wire in Bowden cable) such that a user
‘directly’ pulls the cord. Id. at 1268–69. The district court
concluded that, even treating the trigger as a handle, the
Bowden cables are analogous to the generic cords (18) and
(18a) illustrated in Figure 1B, “which a user indirectly
tightens by directly pulling on the pull cord.” Id. The dis-
trict court explained “it is the pull cord’s function of being
‘directly’ pulled by a user that distinguishes the pull cord
from other ‘cords’ described and depicted within the Pa-
tents.” Id. at 1268. Because the court’s construction re-
quired the pull cord to be directly pulled by the user, the
court also rejected IQRIS’s arguments that (1) adding an
additional object to the end of a pull cord to aid in gripping
would not transform the pull cord into something other
than a pull cord; and (2) the asserted patent claims use
comprising language and thus do not exclude the existence
of additional components such as triggers. Id. at 1269. The
district court concluded that the Accused Products “do not
simply have objects attached to the end of the wire to make
gripping easier”; “[r]ather, they have an entirely separate
mechanism—the ‘trigger manifold’—that replaces the pull
cord altogether.” Id. Based on this conclusion, the court
granted summary judgment of no literal infringement for
both Accused Products.
The court next considered whether to grant summary
judgment of no infringement under the doctrine of equiva-
lents. The court held that, under its construction of pull
cord, no reasonable jury could find that the Accused Prod-
ucts with Quad Release infringe the asserted claims by
equivalents because, under the function, way, result test,
the Quad Release operates in a different way: by allowing
a user to apply “indirect force to the internal wire by
Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 7 Filed: 03/07/2025

-- 7 of 13 --

IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC. 8
applying a direct force to the trigger.” Id. at 1270. As fur-
ther support for its determination, the court emphasized
Defendants’ expert testimony that the Quad Release has a
“mechanical advantage” over a pull cord because the trig-
ger reduces the amount of force that the user must apply
to activate the release. Id. The court explained that its
function, way, result analysis applied solely to Quad Re-
lease because “there is insufficient evidence indicating how
[the Evil Twin] system operates and whether it provides
any advantage over the pull cord system.” Id. at 1271.
The court held that even assuming the Evil Twin trig-
ger is equivalent to the claimed pull cord under the func-
tion, way, result test, summary judgement of no equivalent
infringement was appropriate because holding otherwise
would ensnare the prior art criticized in the background of
the invention section of the specification. Specifically, the
court concluded that IQRIS’s equivalency argument relied
on viewing the Accused Products’ triggers as handles at-
tached to a pull cord. In the court’s view, however, the as-
serted patents “disparage . . . cutaway vests with ‘handle’
release systems because they entailed a tedious and time-
consuming reassembly process.” Id. at 1271–72. Thus, the
court reasoned, if it considered the Quad Release and Evil
Twin trigger systems equivalent to the claimed pull cord,
it would allow the patents-in-suit to cover the very prior art
design that they explicitly criticized. Id. at 1272.
IQRIS appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
D ISCUSSION
IQRIS urges us to vacate the district court’s summary
judgment because it rests on an erroneous construction of
“pull cord.” Specifically, IQRIS contends the district court
erroneously construed “pull cord” to (1) require a user to
pull on the pull cord directly; and (2) exclude cords that in-
clude a handle. We address each issue in turn below.
Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 8 Filed: 03/07/2025

-- 8 of 13 --

IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC. 9
Claim construction “is ultimately a question of law we
review de novo where, as here, it is decided only on the in-
trinsic evidence.” Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc.,
44 F.4th 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2022). We review a district
court’s entry of summary judgment under the law of the
regional circuit, here the Eleventh Circuit. See Teva
Pharm. Indus. v. AstraZeneca Pharms. LP, 661 F.3d 1378,
1381 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In the Eleventh Circuit, a grant of
summary judgment is reviewed de novo, “construing the
facts and all reasonable inferences from the facts in favor
of the nonmoving party.” Lanard Toys Ltd. v. Dolgencorp
LLC, 958 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation omit-
ted).
I
D IRECTLY P ULLED
We first address whether the district court erred by
limiting “pull cord” to cords that are directly pulled by a
user. The parties rely exclusively on intrinsic evidence to
interpret this term, and the record lacks any other evidence
as to how a person of ordinary skill would understand pull
cord. We start with the claim language. The claims merely
recite that the pull cord is “coupled to the at least one re-
leasable hook” and that “the pull cord actuates the at least
one releasable hook to disengage the at least one releasable
hook to which the pull cord is coupled.” ’567 patent col. 6
ll. 45–48. The claims say nothing about who or what pulls
the pull cord. Thus, the claim language itself suggests that
a “pull cord” is a cord that actuates a releasable hook when
pulled. The claims do not specify pulling directly or indi-
rectly.
Turning to the specification, we acknowledge the dis-
trict court’s observation that the specification refers to ele-
ment (16), which is directly pulled, as a “pull cord,” but
refers to element (18), which is indirectly pulled, simply as
a “cord.” Id. at col. 5 ll. 12–14. In our view, this is the
Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 9 Filed: 03/07/2025

-- 9 of 13 --

IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC. 10
strongest evidence in support of the district court’s con-
struction.
While this is a close question, we are not inclined under
our precedent to limit the term “pull cord” to the preferred
embodiments in the specification. Even when all embodi-
ments in the written description depict a pull cord that is
directly pulled, our precedent counsels against reading this
requirement into the claims when the claims do not ex-
pressly require as much. There is a fine line between read-
ing the claims in light of the specification and importing
limitations from the specification into the claims, and here,
where there is no evidence suggesting that the ordinary
meaning of pull cord is limited to a cord that is directly
pulled, we are not inclined to import limitations from the
preferred embodiments into the claimed invention. Playtex
Prods., Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 400 F.3d 901, 907–08
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (collecting cases). It is the claims, not the
preferred embodiments, that define the metes and bounds
of the patentee’s invention. See Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). As is
the case here, the patentee is free to choose a term and ex-
pect to obtain the full scope of its plain and ordinary mean-
ing unless the patentee explicitly redefines the term or
disavows its full scope. Given the claim language and ab-
sence of lexicography or disavowal, we do not adopt the dis-
trict court’s interpretation requiring a pull cord to be
directly pulled by a user.
EXCLUDING A HANDLE
IQRIS contends that neither the plain and ordinary
meaning of “pull cord” nor the text of the asserted claims
and shared specification limit the meaning of the term
“pull cord” to a cord excluding a handle. We agree—noth-
ing in the claim language, specification, or prosecution his-
tory supports this construction.
Starting with the claim language, the representative
claim recites: “a pull cord coupled to the at least one
Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 10 Filed: 03/07/2025

-- 10 of 13 --

IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC. 11
releasable hook, wherein the pull cord actuates the at least
one releasable hook to disengage the at least one releasable
hook . . . to allow detachment of at least a part of the front
panel of the ballistic garment.” ’567 patent col. 6 ll. 45–50.
The claim language recites what the pull cord does, but it
is silent about the structure of the pull cord.
Nor does the specification support the conclusion that
a pull cord cannot have a handle. Indeed, the specification
suggests otherwise because each of the figures depicts a cir-
cular ball at the end of the pull cord (16), suggesting that
the inventors contemplated pull cords with handles. While
Defendants urged the district court to construe “pull cord”
as not including a handle, they admitted that the patent
“figures also illustrate that the pull cord (16) includes a tab
or bead on the end of the pull cord (16) to aid grip during
pulling.” J.A. 2386.
We do not agree with the district court that the specifi-
cation disclaims pull cords that include a handle by dispar-
aging prior art cutaway vests with a handle because “they
entailed a tedious and time-consuming reassembly pro-
cess.” IQRIS Techs., 669 F. Supp. 3d at 1271. “To disavow
claim scope, the specification must contain ‘expressions of
manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear dis-
avowal of claim scope.’” Cont’l Cirs. LLC v. Intel Corp.,
915 F.3d 788, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Retractable
Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296,
1306 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Here, the specification criticizes re-
assembly of cutaway vests as a “time consuming and tedi-
ous process.” ’567 patent col. 2 ll. 2–3. But the
specification also explains that this is because “the cables
need to be rerouted through the entire series of rings and
loops throughout the vest, thereby interlocking the vest
components together”—not because of the handle per se.
Id. at col. 1 l. 67–col. 2 l. 2. While a user actuates disas-
sembly of the cutaway vest by pulling “a handle that is at-
tached to the cables,” the specification disparages the time
consuming and tedious process of reassembling the vest,
Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 11 Filed: 03/07/2025

-- 11 of 13 --

IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC. 12
not the use of a handle. Id. at col. 1 ll. 63–64. Indeed, no-
where does the specification particularly criticize the cuta-
way vest’s handle. “[T]he standard for disavowal is
exacting, requiring clear and unequivocal evidence that the
claimed invention includes or does not include a particular
feature.” Poly-Am., L.P. v. API Indus., Inc., 839 F.3d 1131,
1136 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This high bar is not satisfied here
where, at most, the specification identifies shortcomings in
the prior art that are not specifically directed to the handle.
Defendants nonetheless assert that, although the over-
all design of the cutaway vests results in the “difficult re-
assembly process, the fundamental feature at fault is the
handle.” Appellees’ Br. 39 (emphasis removed). But this
assertion is unsupported by the specification, which says
nothing derogatory about the handle. As such, the specifi-
cation cannot be reasonably viewed as a clear and unequiv-
ocal disavowal of handles.
Our conclusion is further supported by other portions
of the patent specification. The specification discloses that,
in the present invention, the pull cord is coupled to a re-
leasable hook such that, after the releasable hook is disen-
gaged, the vest can be reassembled by reengaging the hook
to the corresponding ring, as opposed to rerouting a cable
through a series of rings and loops as a cutaway vest re-
quires. As the specification explains, because of this “con-
figuration of the connectors, the present invention can offer
up to 95% faster reassembly of a detached garment over
the prior art systems.” ’567 patent col. 6 ll. 9–11. Nothing
in the specification suggests that reassembly of the vest via
the releasable hook would be impacted by the presence or
absence of a handle on the pull cord.
For these reasons, we conclude that the district court
erred by interpreting “pull cord” to exclude pull cords that
include a handle when analyzing infringement under the
doctrine of equivalents.
Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 12 Filed: 03/07/2025

-- 12 of 13 --

IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC. 13
II
The district court’s summary judgment of no literal or
equivalent infringement depended on a flawed construc-
tion that improperly limited “pull cord.” Because we reject
the district court’s claim construction, we vacate the judg-
ment of noninfringement. Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen King-
domway Grp. Co., 790 F.3d 1298, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(“Summary judgment should ordinarily be vacated or re-
versed if the district court bases summary judgment on an
erroneous claim construction.”). We leave to the district
court on remand the task of applying the correct claim con-
struction in the first instance under appropriate factual de-
velopment, including the issues of literal infringement and
infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. We do not
decide whether summary judgment would be appropriate
under our new construction of “pull cord.”
CONCLUSION
We have considered the remaining arguments and do
not find them persuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
vacate and remand the district court’s grant of summary
judgment of noninfringement.
VACATED AND REMANDED
COSTS
Costs to Appellant.
Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 13 Filed: 03/07/2025

-- 13 of 13 --