## Facts

- Prima Tek II, L.L.C. and Southpac Trust International, Inc. owned patents claiming decorative floral display assemblies and methods that support flowers without using a traditional pot.
- Polypap, S.A.R.L. sold an accused product (“Bouquett’O”) that used a stiff plastic insert and decorative wrapping to hold flower stems upright; water could be added through a top opening.
- A French patent application described flowers supported in wetted moss, enclosed in a waterproof covering tightened with a cord.
- Key disputed claim terms included “floral holding material,” “without any pot means,” and a wrapping with a “crimped portion” having at least one “overlapping fold.”
- The district court initially construed “floral holding material” narrowly and granted summary judgment of noninfringement; the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded.
- On remand, the district court construed “floral holding material” to require a material that “hold[s] a predetermined shape,” found the asserted claims valid and infringed, and entered a permanent injunction against Polypap.
- Polypap appealed, challenging the remand claim constructions and the district court’s treatment of the French application as prior art.

## Issues

1. Whether the remand construction of “floral holding material” improperly added a “predetermined shape” requirement not supported by the claims or specification.
2. Whether the French application disclosed the “without any pot means” limitation when it used wetted moss and a tightened wrapping rather than a rigid container.
3. Whether the French application disclosed a “crimped portion” with at least one “overlapping fold” based on gathering and tightening the wrapping with a cord.
4. Whether, under correct claim constructions, the French application anticipated or rendered obvious the asserted claims, requiring invalidity.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment of validity and infringement.
- The court rejected the district court’s “predetermined shape” limitation for “floral holding material” as an unsupported narrowing of claim scope.
- The court agreed that the French application satisfied the “without any pot means” limitation under the ordinary meaning of “pot.”
- The court held the French application disclosed the “crimped portion” and “overlapping fold(s)” limitations because tightening the cord gathered the covering into overlapping folds.
- Because the French application disclosed the disputed limitations under the correct constructions, the patents could not be sustained as valid on the district court’s analysis, and the injunction could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- Claim terms are generally given their ordinary meaning to a person of skill in the art unless the intrinsic record clearly requires a narrower construction.
- Courts may not import limitations from embodiments or examples into the claims absent clear language or unmistakable disclaimer in the specification or prosecution history.
- Prior art must be evaluated in light of properly construed claims, using a practical reading of the reference’s text and figures rather than a rigid or formalistic approach to drawings.
- Functional claim language (e.g., material that “holds” or “supports” flowers) ordinarily covers materials that perform the stated function unless the claim text imposes additional structural constraints.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit reversed the findings of infringement and no invalidity after correcting claim constructions that had improperly narrowed key limitations, concluding that the French prior-art application disclosed the disputed features and eliminating the basis for the permanent injunction.


Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v. Polypap, S.A.R.L., 412 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005)