## Facts

- Backyard Nature Products, Inc. owned a patent covering a bird-feeder design that included an “apertured floor member” connected to the feeder’s vertical walls.
- The patent’s description characterized the apertured floor member as “tray-like,” formed from a flat sheet, and associated with raised or upturned edges.
- Woodlink, Ltd. manufactured and sold bird feeders with an apertured floor made from a flat sheet without any raised or upturned edges.
- Backyard sued Woodlink for patent infringement in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, alleging literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
- The district court construed “apertured floor member” to require at least one raised or upturned edge and granted Woodlink summary judgment of noninfringement.
- Backyard appealed, challenging the claim construction and the resulting noninfringement ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether “apertured floor member” should be construed to require a tray-like structure with at least one raised or upturned edge.
2. Under the proper construction, whether Woodlink’s flat apertured floor literally infringed.
3. If not literally infringed, whether Woodlink’s flat apertured floor infringed under the doctrine of equivalents.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Woodlink.
- The court upheld a construction of “apertured floor member” requiring a tray-like member with at least one upturned edge, based on the specification’s description of the claimed structure.
- On that construction, Woodlink’s products did not literally infringe because they lacked the upturned edge feature.
- The court also agreed there was no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents because treating a flat sheet as equivalent would negate a meaningful structural limitation tied to the claimed configuration.

## Legal Principles

- Claim terms are construed in view of the intrinsic record, including the specification, which can limit claim scope when it consistently describes the claimed structure in a particular way.
- Literal infringement fails when an accused product lacks a required claim limitation as properly construed.
- The doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to eliminate or vitiate a material structural limitation reflected in the construed claim.
- Summary judgment of noninfringement is appropriate where the accused product’s relevant structure is undisputed and, under the court’s claim construction, no reasonable factfinder could find literal or equivalent infringement.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit affirmed noninfringement because the patent’s intrinsic description supported construing “apertured floor member” as a tray-like floor with an upturned edge, and Woodlink’s feeders used a flat apertured floor lacking that limitation, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents.


Backyard Nature Prods., Inc. v. Woodlink, Ltd., 81 F. App’x 729 (Fed. Cir. 2003)