Videray Technologies, Inc., et al v. Viken Detection Corp.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
___________________________________
)
VIDERAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 	)
and TEK84, INC., 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action
) 	No. 23-cv-13035-PBS
VIKEN DETECTION CORP., 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
______________________________ 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
November 19, 2025
Saris, J.
INTRODUCTION
This 	case 	involves 	a 	patent 	for 	an 	x-ray 	imaging 	device.
Videray Technologies, Inc. and Tek84, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) brought
this 	action 	against 	Viken 	Detection 	Corp. 	(“Viken”) 	seeking 	a
declaratory 	judgment 	of 	non-infringement, 	invalidity, 	and
unenforceability with respect to three patents held by Viken: U.S.
Patent 	No. 	10,770,195 	(“the 	’195 	patent”), 	U.S. 	Patent 	No.
11,200,998 	(“the 	’998 	Patent”), 	and 	U.S. 	Patent 	No. 	11,776,706
(“the 	’706 	Patent”). 	Following 	a 	Markman 	hearing, 	the 	Court 	now
enters this order construing terms in the three patents.
Case 1:23-cv-13035-PBS Document 125 Filed 11/19/25 Page 1 of 22

2
BACKGROUND
The ’998 Patent and ’706 Patent are continuations of the ’195
patent, so all three patents contain identical specifications. For
ease of reference, the Court refers to the ’195 patent when citing
that specification.
X-ray backscatter imaging -- in which reflected or scattered
x-rays 	create 	the 	desired 	image 	-- 	is 	frequently 	employed 	by
handheld 	scanning 	devices 	to 	detect 	concealed 	contraband 	such 	as
drugs 	and 	weapons. 	To 	protect 	users 	of 	the 	devices 	from 	x-ray
radiation, 	the 	devices 	historically 	have 	been 	fully 	encased 	by 	a
shield built from x-ray absorbing materials such as tungsten. Those
materials are typically heavy and unwieldy.
The asserted patents aim to alleviate that problem by claiming
a 	“chopper 	wheel 	assembly” 	that 	allows 	for 	a 	more 	lightweight
backscatter imaging device.1 In this assembly, x-rays are channeled
1 The first independent claim of the patent claims the following:
1. An x-ray chopper wheel assembly comprising:
a 	disk 	chopper 	wheel 	configured 	to 	rotate 	about 	a 	rotation
axis thereof, the rotation axis perpendicular to a rotation
plane 	of 	the 	disk 	chopper 	wheel, 	the 	disk 	chopper 	wheel
having a solid cross-sectional area in the rotation plane,
the disk chopper wheel configured to absorb x-ray radiation
received from an x-ray source at a source side of the disk
chopper wheel, the disk chopper wheel defining one or more
radial 	slit 	openings 	configured 	to 	pass 	x-ray 	radiation
from the source side of the disk chopper wheel to an output
side of the disk chopper wheel;
a 	source-side 	scatter 	plate 	having 	a 	solid 	cross-sectional
area 	in 	a 	plane 	substantially 	parallel 	to 	the 	rotation
plane 	of 	the 	disk 	chopper 	wheel, 	the 	source-side 	scatter
Case 1:23-cv-13035-PBS Document 125 Filed 11/19/25 Page 2 of 22

3
through 	slits 	in 	a 	rotating 	“chopper 	wheel” 	to 	ultimately 	reach
the 	object 	being 	scanned. 	At 	least 	one 	“scatter 	plate,” 	rather
than a shield encasing the entire assembly, is used to absorb the
x-rays that rebound from the solid portions of the chopper wheel.
One 	embodiment 	of 	the 	asserted 	patents 	is 	shown 	in 	the
following 	figure, 	which 	depicts 	an 	exploded 	view 	of 	an 	“x-ray
chopper wheel assembly 400”:
plate configured to absorb x-ray radiation and defining an
open 	slot 	therein 	configured 	to 	pass 	x-ray 	radiation,
wherein 	the 	solid 	cross-sectional 	area 	of 	the 	source-side
scatter 	plate 	is 	substantially 	smaller 	than 	the 	solid
cross-sectional area of the disk chopper wheel; and
a 	support 	structure 	configured 	to 	secure 	the 	source-side
scatter 	plate 	in 	the 	plane 	substantially 	parallel 	to 	the
rotation 	plane 	of 	the 	disk 	chopper 	wheel 	with 	a 	source-
side 	gap 	between 	the 	source-side 	scatter 	plate 	and 	the
source 	side 	of 	the 	disk 	chopper 	wheel 	wherein 	the 	disk
chopper 	wheel 	and 	source-side 	scatter 	plate 	are 	arranged
relative 	to 	each 	other 	to 	cause a 	substantial 	confinement
of x-rays that are scattered from the disk chopper wheel.
’195 	patent 	at 	14:46-15:7 	(emphases 	added). 	The 	underlined 	terms
are the ones whose constructions are in dispute.
Case 1:23-cv-13035-PBS Document 125 Filed 11/19/25 Page 3 of 22

4
’195 patent at 8:6, fig.4B; see id. at 9:59-60. In this embodiment,
x-rays travel through an “optional shield structure 405” and then
through 	a 	horizontal 	slit 	in 	a 	“source-side 	scatter 	plate 	403.”
Id. 	at 	9:48-49, 	9:51-52. 	The 	x-rays 	subsequently 	pass 	through
radial 	slits 	in 	a 	rotating 	“disk 	chopper 	wheel 	401” 	and 	then
through 	another 	horizontal 	slit 	in 	an 	“output-side 	scatter 	plate
404.” 	Id. 	at 	10:2, 	10:8-9. 	The 	scatter 	plates 	and 	disk 	chopper
wheel 	are 	secured 	by 	“support 	structure 	portions 	402a 	and 	402b.”
Id. at 10:1 (emphases omitted); see id. at 9:65-10:6.
LEGAL STANDARD
Claim construction is an issue of law. See Teva Pharms. USA,
Inc. v. 	Sandoz, 	Inc., 	574 	U.S. 	318, 	325 	(2015). 	“Claim 	terms 	are
generally 	given 	their 	plain 	and 	ordinary 	meaning, 	which 	is 	the
meaning 	one 	of 	ordinary 	skill 	in 	the 	art 	would 	ascribe 	to 	a 	term
when 	read 	in 	the 	context 	of 	the 	claim, 	specification, 	and
prosecution 	history.” 	Chewy, 	Inc. v. 	Int’l 	Bus. 	Machs. 	Corp., 	94
F.4th 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
Courts begin claim construction “by considering the language
of 	the 	claims 	themselves.” 	Grace 	Instrument 	Indus., 	LLC v.
Chandler 	Instruments 	Co., 	57 	F.4th 	1001, 	1008 	(Fed. 	Cir. 	2023).
The 	“claims 	must 	be 	read 	in 	view 	of 	the 	specification, 	of 	which
they 	are 	a 	part.” 	Id. 	(quoting 	Phillips v. 	AWH 	Corp., 	415 	F.3d
1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). A patent’s “specification
is 	the 	‘single 	best 	guide 	to 	the 	meaning 	of 	a 	disputed 	term’ 	and
Case 1:23-cv-13035-PBS Document 125 Filed 11/19/25 Page 4 of 22

5
‘is, 	thus, 	the 	primary 	basis 	for 	construing 	the 	claims.’” 	Id.
(citation omitted) (first quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
Inc., 	90 	F.3d 	1576, 	1582 	(Fed. 	Cir. 	1996); 	and 	then 	quoting
Phillips, 	415 	F.3d 	at 	1315). 	But 	“particular 	features 	recited 	in
the 	specification 	merely 	as 	aspects 	of 	embodiments, 	and 	not
expressly 	or 	even 	implicitly 	identifying 	requirements 	of 	the
invention, do not narrow a claim term that is otherwise broader in
its 	ordinary 	meaning.” 	Promptu 	Sys. 	Corp. v. 	Comcast 	Corp., 	92
F.4th 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
A 	court 	may 	also 	“consider 	extrinsic 	evidence, 	like 	expert
testimony, 	dictionaries, 	and 	treatises,” 	during 	claim
construction. Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283,
1290 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This evidence, however, is “less significant
than 	the 	intrinsic 	record” 	and 	cannot 	overcome 	a 	meaning 	that 	is
clear from the claims and the specification. ParkerVision, Inc. v.
Qualcomm 	Inc., 	116 	F.4th 	1345, 	1357 	(Fed. 	Cir. 	2024) 	(quoting
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317).
DISCUSSION
A 	scan 	of 	the 	parties’ 	arguments 	makes 	clear 	that 	two 	items
can be addressed at the outset. First, the parties have agreed to
the following construction, which the Court adopts:
Term 	Agreed-Upon Construction
“approximately” 	“plus or minus 0.25 mm”
Case 1:23-cv-13035-PBS Document 125 Filed 11/19/25 Page 5 of 22

6
Dkt. 	50 	at 	4. 	Second, 	the 	parties 	initially 	disputed 	the
constructions 	of 	the 	following 	two 	terms, 	with 	Plaintiffs
contending that the two terms are indefinite:
Term 	Plaintiffs’
Construction
Viken’s Construction
“substantially
smaller than the
solid [cross-
sectional] area of
the [disk/disk
chopper
wheel/chopper
wheel]”
Indefinite 	“either the source-
side plate width or
the source-side
plate length of the
source-side scatter
plate is smaller
than the diameter of
the disk chopper
wheel”
“substantially
parallel to [the/a]
rotation plane of
the disk chopper
wheel”
Indefinite 	Plain and ordinary
meaning
Id. 	At 	the 	Markman 	hearing, 	however, 	the 	parties 	indicated 	that
they 	placed 	this 	disagreement 	on 	the 	chopping 	block 	and 	that 	no
current 	dispute 	remains 	over 	the 	meaning 	of 	these 	terms, 	subject
to the Plaintiffs’ reserving the right to reassert their argument
regarding 	indefiniteness 	at 	a 	later 	stage 	of 	the 	litigation.
Plaintiffs have acceded to Viken’s constructions of these two terms
in 	the 	meantime. 	See 	Dkt. 	52 	at 	20. 	Therefore, 	the 	Court 	adopts
Viken’s constructions and, as discussed below, will adjudicate any
indefiniteness arguments at summary judgment. See infra Section I.
Case 1:23-cv-13035-PBS Document 125 Filed 11/19/25 Page 6 of 22

7
The 	proper 	constructions 	of 	several 	other 	claim 	terms 	are
contested. The Court addresses each set of disputed constructions
in turn.
I. 	“Substantial Confinement”
The 	parties’ 	first 	disagreement 	concerns 	variations 	of 	a
phrase 	used 	to 	describe 	the 	extent 	to 	which 	the 	arrangement 	of
components 	in 	the 	patented 	invention 	results 	in 	the 	reduction 	of
x-ray radiation: “substantial confinement.”
Term 	Plaintiffs’
Construction
Viken’s Construction
“substantial
confinement” /
“confine
substantially” /
“substantially
confining”
Indefinite 	“x-ray leakage of
scattered radiation
that is limited to
no more than 50%
leakage of the
radiation that is
scattered by the
wheel, or to an x-
ray radiation dose
of no more than 5
milli-Rem per hour
at a distance of 5
cm away from an
outer surface of the
assembly, whichever
is greater”
“limit(s) leakage of
scattered radiation
to no more than
[50%/10%] of
scattered radiation
or to a dose of no
more than [5/0.5]
milli-Rem per hour
at a distance of 5
cm away from an
outer surface of the
Indefinite 	Plain and ordinary
meaning
Case 1:23-cv-13035-PBS Document 125 Filed 11/19/25 Page 7 of 22

8
assembly, whichever
is greater”
There is no dispute that the specification explicitly defines
“substantial confinement” as follows:
As used herein, “substantial confinement” of x-ray radiation
denotes 	that 	the 	disk 	chopper 	wheel 	and 	source-side 	scatter
plate 	are 	arranged 	relative 	to 	each 	other 	with 	gaps, 	plate
width, etc. such that x-ray leakage of scattered radiation is
limited to no more than 50% leakage of the radiation that is
scattered 	by 	the 	wheel, 	or 	to 	an 	x-ray 	radiation 	dose 	of 	no
more 	than 	5 	milli-Rem 	per 	hour 	at 	a 	distance 	of 	5 	cm 	away
from an outer surface of the assembly, whichever is greater.
’195 patent at 11:36-44; see also id. at 11:44-50 (“The substantial
confinement 	may 	further 	include 	limiting 	leakage 	of 	scattered
radiation 	to 	no 	more 	than 	10% 	of 	radiation 	that 	is 	scattered 	by
the 	assembly, 	or 	to 	a 	radiation 	dose 	of 	no 	more 	than 	0.5 	milli-
Rem per hour at a distance of 5 cm away from the outer surface of
the 	assembly, 	such 	as 	from 	the 	outer 	surface 	of 	the 	support
structure, whichever is greater.”).
“Where 	the 	specification 	instructs 	as 	to 	the 	meaning 	of 	a
claim 	term, 	‘the 	inventor’s 	lexicography 	governs.’” 	Grace
Instrument, 57 F.4th at 1010 (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316).
Plaintiffs 	contend, 	however, 	that 	here, 	the 	inventor’s
lexicography is itself indefinite, rendering the term “substantial
confinement” 	indefinite 	as 	well. 	In 	particular, 	Plaintiffs 	argue
that 	the 	specification’s 	definition 	of 	“substantial 	confinement”
“requires 	comparing 	two 	measurements 	of 	inconsistent 	units” 	--
individual x-rays measured as a unitless integer, on the one hand,
Case 1:23-cv-13035-PBS Document 125 Filed 11/19/25 Page 8 of 22

9
with radiation dose measured in millirem per hour,2 on the other –-
“to 	determine 	‘whichever 	is 	greater,’” 	which 	constitutes 	“a
mathematical 	impossibility.” 	Dkt. 	52 	at 	11. 	Plaintiffs 	further
assert 	that 	the 	definition 	of 	“substantial 	confinement” 	is
indefinite because it fails to elucidate precisely “how or at what
location 	to 	perform 	the 	measurement[] 	required” 	at 	a 	distance 	of
5 cm from the outer surface of the assembly. Id. Plaintiffs submit
an 	expert 	declaration 	from 	the 	CEO 	of 	Plaintiff 	Tek84, 	Inc., 	in
support of their positions.
Viken responds that the “substantial confinement” limitation
is 	“met 	by 	either 	of 	two 	criteria”: 	first, 	that 	“x-ray 	leakage
scattered 	by 	the 	wheel 	. 	. 	. 	is 	decreased 	by 	50% 	or 	more,” 	or
second, 	that 	“x-ray 	leakage 	scattered 	by 	the 	chopper 	wheel 	. 	. 	.
is 	reduced 	to 	no 	more 	than 	5 	milli-Rem 	per 	hour 	at 	a 	distance 	of
5 	cm 	away 	from 	the 	chopper 	wheel 	assembly.” 	Dkt. 	55 	at 	11. 	Viken
further posits that “both criteria are measuring the same variable
of radiation dose, which is measured in milli-Rem,” Dkt. 76 at 4,
and 	that 	calculating 	radiation 	dose 	based 	on 	a 	number 	of 	x-rays
would be straightforward to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
With 	respect 	to 	the 	location 	of 	measurement, 	Viken 	asserts 	that
the 	“dosage 	of 	the 	second 	criterion 	refers 	to 	the 	maximum 	dosage
2 A millirem is one thousandth of a rem, which stands for “roentgen
equivalent man” and reflects biological damage caused by radiation
dose.
Case 1:23-cv-13035-PBS Document 125 Filed 11/19/25 Page 9 of 22

10
at 	any 	point 	5 	cm 	away 	from 	the 	assembly,” 	as 	is 	relevant 	for
assessing the safety of an individual holding the scanning device.
Dkt. 76 at 6 (emphasis added). In support of its positions, Viken
submits 	an 	expert 	declaration 	from 	the 	inventor 	of 	the 	patented
device.
A 	patent’s 	claims 	must 	“particularly 	point[] 	out 	and
distinctly 	claim[] 	the 	subject 	matter 	which 	the 	inventor 	. 	. 	.
regards 	as 	the 	invention.” 	35 	U.S.C. 	§ 	112(b). 	To 	satisfy 	this
“definiteness requirement,” the claims must, when “viewed in light
of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled
in 	the 	art 	about 	the 	scope 	of 	the 	invention 	with 	reasonable
certainty.” 	Nautilus, 	Inc. 	v. 	Biosig 	Instruments, 	Inc., 	572 	U.S.
898, 	910 	(2014). 	“The 	definiteness 	requirement, 	so 	understood,
mandates 	clarity, 	while 	recognizing 	that 	absolute 	precision 	is
unattainable.” 	Id.; 	see 	Niazi 	Licensing 	Corp. 	v. 	St. 	Jude 	Med.
S.C., Inc., 30 F.4th 1339, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“[L]anguage has
‘inherent 	limitations.’ 	The 	reasonable 	certainty 	standard 	exists
to strike a ‘delicate balance,’ ‘afford[ing] clear notice of what
is claimed’ while recognizing such inherent limitations.” (second
alteration in original) (citation omitted) (quoting Nautilus, 572
U.S. 	at 	909)). 	Although 	“training 	questions 	of 	indefiniteness 	on
individual 	claim 	terms” 	can 	be 	a 	“helpful 	tool” 	in 	construing
overall 	claims, 	“the 	dispositive 	question 	in 	an 	indefiniteness
inquiry is whether the ‘claims,’ not particular claim terms,’” are
Case 1:23-cv-13035-PBS Document 125 Filed 11/19/25 Page 10 of 22

11
insufficiently definite. Cox Commc’ns, Inc. v. Sprint Commc’n Co.,
838 F.3d 1224, 1231-32 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
While 	“[g]eneral 	principles 	of 	claim 	construction 	apply 	to
indefiniteness allegations,” HZNP Meds. LLC v. Actavis Lab’ys UT,
Inc., 	940 	F.3d 	680, 	688 	(Fed. 	Cir. 	2019), 	at 	least 	two 	rules, 	as
a practical matter, differentiate the indefiniteness inquiry from
the mine-run claim construction analysis. First, “[i]ndefiniteness
must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Sonix Tech. Co.
v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see
Momenta Pharms., Inc. v. Amphastar Pharms., Inc., 887 F. Supp. 2d
303, 	313 	(D. 	Mass. 	2012) 	(“[A]n 	allegedly 	infringing 	party 	must
prove 	indefiniteness 	by 	‘clear 	and 	convincing 	proof’ 	to 	overcome
the statutory presumption of validity . . . .”). Second, “[u]nlike
a 	Markman 	proceeding 	that 	gives 	meaning 	to 	patent 	claims,
indefiniteness 	invalidates 	the 	claims 	entirely.” 	Amax, 	Inc. 	v.
ACCO 	Brands 	Corp., 	282 	F. 	Supp. 	3d 	432, 	442 	(D. 	Mass. 	2017)
(quoting 	CSB–Sys. 	Int’l 	Inc. 	v. 	SAP 	Am., 	Inc., 	No. 	10-2156, 	2011
WL 3240838, at *18 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2011)); see also id. at 441
(“The Federal Circuit has emphasized that it ‘ha[s] certainly not
endorsed a regime in which validity analysis is a regular component
of 	claim 	construction.’” 	(alteration 	in 	original) 	(quoting
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327)).
These 	principles 	have 	led 	courts 	to 	defer 	the 	question 	of
indefiniteness until the summary judgment stage. See, e.g., id. at
Case 1:23-cv-13035-PBS Document 125 Filed 11/19/25 Page 11 of 22

12
441-42; Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. Zoll Med. Corp., 914 F.
Supp. 	2d 	89, 	100-01 	(D. 	Mass. 	2012), 	aff’d 	sub 	nom., 	Koninklijke
Philips N.V. v. Zoll Med. Corp., 656 F. App’x 504 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Momenta 	Pharms., 	887 	F. 	Supp. 	2d 	at 	313. 	“Given 	the 	burden 	. 	. .
to 	establish 	indefiniteness 	by 	clear 	and 	convincing 	evidence, 	as
well as the potentially dispositive and patent-invalidating effect
of 	an 	indefiniteness 	finding,” 	it 	often 	“is 	appropriate 	to 	defer
resolution of this question until the close of all discovery, when
a 	fuller 	record 	is 	available.” 	Ethicon 	Endo-Surgery, 	Inc. 	v.
Covidien 	LP, 	No. 	16—cv-12556, 	2018 	WL 	3104078, 	at 	*7 	(D. 	Mass.
June 21, 2018).
Here, too, the Court agrees with Viken that the indefiniteness
concerns raised by Plaintiffs should be deferred. Indeed, the fact
that 	the 	parties 	have 	submitted 	competing 	expert 	declarations
accentuates 	that 	adjudicating 	indefiniteness 	requires 	a 	full
record. 	See 	Koninklijke, 	914 	F. 	Supp. 	2d 	at 	101 	(determining 	a
“battle 	of 	the 	experts” 	regarding 	indefiniteness 	should 	be
deferred 	until 	summary 	judgment). 	Accordingly, 	the 	Court 	defers
the 	question 	of 	indefiniteness 	until 	summary 	judgment.3 	In 	the
meantime, 	the 	Court 	construes 	the 	term 	“substantial 	confinement”
in accordance with the patent’s lexicography.
3 Because the Court defers the indefiniteness inquiry, Plaintiffs’
motion to strike Viken’s expert declaration (Dkt. 79) is denied as
moot.
Case 1:23-cv-13035-PBS Document 125 Filed 11/19/25 Page 12 of 22

13
II. 	“Plate”
Next, the parties dispute the proper construction of the term
“plate” as used in the patents’ references to the source-side and
output-side scatter plates:
Term 	Plaintiffs’
Construction
Viken’s Construction
“source-side scatter
plate” / “output-
side scatter plate”
“relatively thin,
flat sheet of x-ray
absorbing metal at
the [source/output]
side of the chopper
wheel”
“a plate designed to
absorb x-rays that
are scattered off
the chopper wheel”
Dkt. 50 at 2-3.
In 	their 	briefing 	and 	at 	the 	Markman 	hearing, 	the 	parties
made 	clear 	that 	no 	real 	dispute 	exists 	as 	to 	the 	terms 	“source-
side” and “output-side,” which specify the locations of the scatter
plates 	with 	respect 	to 	the 	chopper 	wheel. 	Nor 	do 	the 	parties
disagree 	that 	the 	scatter 	plates 	are 	intended 	to 	absorb 	x-rays
rebounding from the chopper wheel. Rather, the dispute centers on
the 	term 	“plate.” 	Plaintiffs 	contend 	that 	the 	word 	“plate” 	must
refer to a “relatively thin, flat sheet,” while Viken argues that
the term “plate” is already comprehensible to a jury and thus need
not be construed.
Dictionaries 	are 	“among 	the 	many 	tools 	that 	can 	assist 	the
court 	in 	determining” 	the 	plain 	and 	ordinary 	meaning 	of 	a 	claim
term. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. Merriam-Webster defines “plate”
as “a smooth flat thin piece of material.” Plate, Merriam-Webster,
Case 1:23-cv-13035-PBS Document 125 Filed 11/19/25 Page 13 of 22

14
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plate. Plaintiffs also
note, 	and 	Viken 	does 	not 	contest, 	that 	a 	specialized 	engineering
dictionary 	-- 	the 	ASTM 	Dictionary 	of 	Engineering 	Science 	&
Technology 	-- 	defines 	“plate” 	as 	“a 	flat, 	rolled 	sheet 	having 	a
width 	and 	length 	much 	greater 	than 	thickness.” 	Dkt. 	53-12 	at 	4.
These dictionary definitions are consistent with the Court’s view
that in ordinary usage, the word “plate” connotes a generally flat,
thin 	object. 	See 	Phillips, 	415 	F.3d 	at 	1312 	(“[T]he 	words 	of 	a
claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’”
(quoting Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1582).
Several 	lines 	of 	intrinsic 	evidence 	further 	support 	this
interpretation. 	For 	one, 	all 	of 	the 	specification’s 	drawings
depict 	the 	scatter 	plates 	as 	flat 	and 	thin. 	See 	’195 	patent
figs.4A, 	4B, 	5A, 	5B; 	see 	also 	id. 	at 	6:35-36 	(“Thickness 	of 	the
scatter 	plate 	is 	further 	illustrated 	in 	connection 	with 	FIG.
5B . . . .”). Moreover, the specification regularly discusses the
importance of the scatter plates’ being lightweight, a goal which
is better accomplished by thin plates than thick ones. See, e.g.,
’195 	patent 	at 	6:24-29 	(“The 	substantially 	smaller 	source-side
scatter 	plate 	. 	. 	. 	provides 	for 	substantially 	reduced 	weight 	of
a 	chopper 	wheel 	assembly, 	facilitating 	handheld 	x-ray
scanning . . . .”). 	Dependent 	claims 	also 	contemplate 	relatively
thin 	plates 	by 	teaching 	source-side 	scatter 	plates 	“ha[ving] 	a
Case 1:23-cv-13035-PBS Document 125 Filed 11/19/25 Page 14 of 22

15
thickness on the order of 1.0 mm.” ’195 patent at 15:17-19, 16:57-
59; see also id. at 2:2-3.
The 	Court 	construes 	“plate” 	as 	“a 	generally 	thin, 	flat
structure.” 	This 	construction 	is 	consistent 	with 	those 	of 	other
courts 	in 	similar 	contexts. 	See, 	e.g., 	Flexhead 	Indus., 	Inc. 	v.
Easyflex, Inc., No. 06-cv-11898, 2008 WL 4813797, at *8 (D. Mass.
Nov. 	3, 	2008) 	(construing 	“plate” 	as 	“a 	generally 	flat, 	thin
structure”); Pelican Int’l Inc. v. Hobie Cat Co., No. 20-cv-2390,
2022 WL 298959, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2022) (construing “plate”
as a “generally flat structure”).
III. 	“Support Structure”
The 	parties’ 	third 	dispute 	centers 	on 	the 	term 	“support
structure”:
Term 	Plaintiffs’
Construction
Viken’s Construction
“support structure” 	“structure that
secures claimed
components of the
chopper wheel
assembly relative to
each other, and does
not comprise the
components”
Plain and ordinary
meaning, or
“a structure that
secures the source-
side scatter plate
in a plane
substantially
parallel to the
rotation plane of
the disk chopper
wheel”
Dkt. 	50 	at 	3. 	The 	crux 	of 	the 	disagreement 	is 	whether 	the 	claims
at 	issue 	teach 	a 	“support 	structure” 	that 	is 	distinct 	from 	the
Case 1:23-cv-13035-PBS Document 125 Filed 11/19/25 Page 15 of 22

16
components that it supports. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that
they do.
Claim 1 of the ’195 patent is the sole independent claim that
includes 	the 	term 	“support 	structure.” 	That 	claim 	teaches 	an 	“x-
ray chopper wheel assembly comprising” three items: a “disk chopper
wheel,” a “source-side scatter plate,” and a ”support structure.”
’195 	patent 	at 	14:46-47, 	14:58, 	14:66. 	The 	Federal 	Circuit 	has
held that when “a claim lists elements separately,” the meaning of
the claim language “is that those elements are distinct components
of 	the 	patented 	invention.” 	Regeneron 	Pharms., 	Inc. 	v. 	Mylan
Pharms. 	Inc., 	130 	F.4th 	1372, 	1379 	(Fed. 	Cir. 	2025) 	(quoting
Becton, 	Dickinson 	& 	Co. 	v. 	Tyco 	Healthcare 	Grp., 	616 	F.3d 	1249,
1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Further, claim 1 states that the “support
structure” is “configured to secure the source-side scatter plate
in 	the 	plane 	substantially 	parallel 	to 	the 	rotation 	plane 	of 	the
disk 	chopper 	wheel.” 	’195 	patent 	at 	14:66-15:1. 	In 	other 	words,
the 	source-side 	scatter 	plate 	is 	the 	object 	that 	the 	support
structure 	secures 	(i.e., 	the 	direct 	object 	corresponding 	to 	the
word “secure”). Cf. Flexhead, 2008 WL 4813797, at *6-7 (construing
a 	“sleeve” 	to 	be 	a 	structure 	distinct 	from 	a 	“plate” 	where 	the
patent 	claimed 	a 	“sleeve 	. 	. 	. 	extending 	through 	a 	broad 	surface
of the plate”).
The 	dependent 	claims 	including 	the 	term 	“support 	structure”
follow the same pattern. Some claims identify other items that the
Case 1:23-cv-13035-PBS Document 125 Filed 11/19/25 Page 16 of 22

17
support structure can secure, such as the output-side scatter plate
or 	the 	disk 	chopper 	wheel. 	See 	’195 	patent 	at 	15:44-51. 	Other
claims 	teach 	a 	“support 	structure 	[that] 	includes 	a 	source-side
portion 	and 	an 	output-side 	portion, 	the 	source-side 	and 	output-
side 	portions 	configured 	to 	be 	connected 	together 	and 	to 	secure
the disk chopper wheel therebetween.” Id. at 15:58-62; see id. at
18:5-8. No claim admits of an interpretation in which the support
structure “can be the same structure” as the components it secures.
Becton, 616 F.3d at 1254.
Other 	language 	in 	the 	specification 	further 	supports 	this
understanding. 	For 	example, 	the 	patent’s 	abstract 	states 	that 	in
addition to the disk chopper wheel and source-side scatter plate,
the 	x-ray 	chopper 	wheel 	assembly 	“also 	includes 	a 	support
structure.” ’195 patent, at [57] (emphasis added); cf. Obduskey v.
McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 586 U.S. 466, 475 (2019) (noting that when
a “primary definition” is followed by the phrase “also includes,”
such 	phrasing 	“strongly 	suggests” 	that 	the 	items 	following 	the
words “also includes” do not fall within the “primary definition”);
see also ’195 patent at 1:55-56 (“The assembly further includes a
support 	structure 	. 	. 	. 	.” 	(emphasis 	added)). 	Moreover, 	the
patents’ figures depict the support structure as a separate object
from 	the 	other 	components 	of 	the 	x-ray 	assembly. 	See 	’195 	patent
figs.4A, 	4B. 	And 	unlike 	the 	disk 	chopper 	wheel 	and 	the 	scatter
plates, 	which 	are 	“configured 	to 	absorb 	x-ray 	radiation,” 	id. 	at
Case 1:23-cv-13035-PBS Document 125 Filed 11/19/25 Page 17 of 22

18
14:51-52, 	14:61, 	“the 	support 	structure 	need 	not 	be 	relied 	upon
for x-ray shielding,” id. at 9:47; see also id. at 7:12-16 (“[T]he
support 	structure 	need 	not 	be 	relied 	upon 	for 	x-ray 	shielding 	or
scattering 	confinement. 	Instead, 	the 	source-side 	scatter 	plate
(and in other embodiments, the output-side scatter plate) perform
this function.”).
Accordingly, the Court construes the term “support structure”
as 	“a 	structure 	that 	secures 	claimed 	components 	of 	the 	chopper
wheel assembly relative to each other, and that does not comprise
the components.”4
IV. 	“Disk Chopper Wheel”
Finally, the parties seek construction of various claim terms
related to the term “chopper wheel”:
Term 	Plaintiffs’
Construction
Viken’s Construction
“disk chopper wheel
configured to absorb
x-ray radiation”
Indefinite;
alternatively:
“disk-shaped chopper
wheel, the entire
disk shape
configured to absorb
x-ray radiation”
See construction of
“disk chopper wheel”
below, otherwise,
plain and ordinary
meaning
“chopper wheel
having a solid area
Indefinite;
alternatively:
See construction of
“disk chopper wheel”
below, otherwise,
4 Viken states that the term “claimed components” would “confuse a
jury.” 	Dkt. 	55 	at 	15. 	The 	Court 	disagrees. 	The 	term 	“claimed
components” 	refers 	to 	the 	components 	secured 	by 	the 	support
structure in each relevant claim -- i.e., the items identified in
the claims as the direct objects of the word “secure.”
Case 1:23-cv-13035-PBS Document 125 Filed 11/19/25 Page 18 of 22

19
configured to block
x-ray radiation”
“chopper wheel
having a single
solid area, the
entire solid area
configured to block
x-ray radiation”
plain and ordinary
meaning
“configuring a
chopper wheel of an
x-ray chopper wheel
assembly to have a
solid area
configured to block
x-ray radiation”
Indefinite;
alternatively:
“configuring a
chopper wheel of an
x-ray assembly to
have a single solid
area, the entire
solid area
configured to block
x-ray radiation”
See construction of
“disk chopper wheel”
below, otherwise,
plain and ordinary
meaning
“disk chopper wheel”
or “chopper wheel”
Indefinite;
alternatively:
“disk-shaped chopper
wheel, the entire
disk shape
configured to absorb
or block x-ray
radiation”
“a disk configured
to rotate about an
axis having a solid
area configured to
block x-ray
radiation received
at a source side of
the chopper wheel
from an x-ray
source, and one or
more openings
configured to pass
x-ray radiation from
the source side of
the chopper wheel to
an output side of
the chopper wheel”
Dkt. 50 at 3-4.
As the parties agree, the dispute relevant to the four above
claim 	terms 	centers 	on 	whether 	the 	entire 	surface 	of 	the 	chopper
wheel 	is 	configured 	to 	absorb 	x-ray 	radiation. 	Plaintiffs 	argue
that the claims’ use of the phrase “solid area” indicates that the
whole 	chopper 	wheel 	necessarily 	consists 	of 	an 	x-ray 	absorbing
Case 1:23-cv-13035-PBS Document 125 Filed 11/19/25 Page 19 of 22

20
material. 	Viken 	responds 	that 	no 	language 	in 	the 	claims 	or
specification support Plaintiffs’ proposed limitation and that the
embodiments in the specification’s figures suggest that only part
of the chopper wheel need be x-ray absorbing.
The 	Court 	agrees 	with 	Viken. 	The 	patents’ 	claims 	generally
teach 	a 	“disk 	chopper 	wheel 	configured 	to 	absorb 	x-ray 	radiation
received from an x-ray source,” ’195 patent at 14:51-52; see ’998
patent at 14:55-56 (same), or a “chopper wheel having a solid area
configured 	to 	block 	x-ray 	radiation 	received 	. 	. 	. 	from 	an 	x-ray
source,” 	’998 	patent 	at 	16:16-18; 	see 	’706 	patent 	at 	14:54-56
(same). 	Although 	Plaintiffs 	are 	correct 	that 	“the 	claims 	recite
that the ‘disk chopper wheel’ -- not a portion of the disk chopper
wheel 	-- 	is 	‘configured 	to 	absorb 	x-ray 	radiation,’” 	Dkt. 	74 	at
16, 	the 	conclusion 	does 	not 	follow 	that 	the 	entire 	disk 	chopper
wheel must be x-ray absorbing in order for the disk chopper wheel
to be “configured” to block radiation.
The 	specification 	reinforces 	the 	conclusion 	that 	the 	entire
chopper wheel need not necessarily be x-ray absorbing. For example,
several figures show embodiments of an x-ray assembly in which the
x-rays 	make 	contact 	only 	with 	the 	outer 	portion 	of 	the 	chopper
wheel. 	See 	’195 	patent 	figs.5A, 	6. 	These 	drawings 	suggest 	that
even if a chopper wheel is not entirely composed of x-ray absorbing
material, 	it 	nevertheless 	may 	be 	“configured” 	to 	block 	x-ray
radiation 	“received” 	from 	the 	x-ray 	source. 	Further, 	the 	Court
Case 1:23-cv-13035-PBS Document 125 Filed 11/19/25 Page 20 of 22

21
disagrees with Plaintiffs’ argument that because the specification
generally identifies components that “can be made lighter or less
expensive” 	but 	makes 	no 	“reference 	to 	weight 	or 	expense 	relating
to the chopper wheel,” the wheel must be entirely constructed from
a heavier, more expensive x-ray absorbing material. Dkt. 74 at 16.
On the contrary, the specification equally calls out components --
such as the source-side scatter plate and the shield structure --
that 	can 	be 	formed 	from 	x-ray 	absorbing 	materials 	such 	as 	“lead,
tin, iron, or tungsten.” ’195 patent at 2:15; see id. at 9:52-53.
The 	fact 	that 	no 	constituent 	materials 	are 	specified 	for 	the
chopper 	wheel 	weighs 	toward 	finding 	that 	no 	claim 	limits 	the
chopper wheel to being “entirely” composed of such materials.
The task remains of construing the term “disk chopper wheel.”
Because the parties do not dispute that “disk” refers to the shape
of the wheel and that a “chopper wheel” is a well understood term
in the art, the Court construes “disk chopper wheel” according to
its 	ordinary 	and 	customary 	meaning 	as 	“a 	generally 	disk-shaped
chopper wheel.”
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	resolution 	of 	Plaintiffs’
indefiniteness 	challenges 	is 	DEFERRED, 	and 	Plaintiffs’ 	motion 	to
strike Viken’s expert declaration (Dkt. 79) is DENIED as moot. The
claim 	terms 	are 	construed 	as 	set 	forth 	in 	the 	foregoing 	opinion
Case 1:23-cv-13035-PBS Document 125 Filed 11/19/25 Page 21 of 22

22
and 	in 	the 	following 	table, 	subject 	to 	potential 	indefiniteness
challenges at summary judgment:
Term 	Construction
“approximately” 	“plus or minus 0.25 mm”
“substantial 	confinement” 	/
“confine 	substantially” 	/
“substantially confining”
Lexicographer’s definition (see
supra Section I)
“plate” 	“a 	generally 	thin, 	flat
structure”
“support structure” 	“a 	structure 	that 	secures
claimed 	components 	of 	the
chopper wheel assembly relative
to each other, and that does not
comprise the components”
“disk chopper wheel” 	“a 	generally 	disk-shaped
chopper wheel”
“substantially smaller than the
solid [cross-sectional] area of
the 	[disk/disk 	chopper
wheel/chopper wheel]”
“either 	the 	source-side 	plate
width 	or 	the 	source-side 	plate
length 	of 	the 	source-side
scatter 	plate 	is 	smaller 	than
the diameter of the disk chopper
wheel”
“substantially 	parallel 	to
[the/a] 	rotation 	plane 	of 	the
disk chopper wheel”
Plain and ordinary meaning
SO ORDERED.
/s/ PATTI B. SARIS__________
Hon. Patti B. Saris
United States District Judge
Case 1:23-cv-13035-PBS Document 125 Filed 11/19/25 Page 22 of 22