## Facts

- American Science & Engineering, Inc. (AS&E) owned U.S. Patent No. 5,253,283 covering an X-ray inspection system for security screening.
- The patented system used information from both transmitted and scattered X-ray radiation and displayed image information in color to help highlight suspicious objects.
- Vivid Technologies, Inc. developed an X-ray security device using different image-processing techniques.
- Vivid filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination of noninfringement.
- AS&E counterclaimed, alleging infringement of certain patent claims.
- The district court construed disputed claim terms and granted summary judgment that Vivid did not literally infringe.
- At Vivid’s request, the district court stayed discovery and resolved noninfringement on the existing record while indicating AS&E could seek amendment only with a proper Rule 11 basis.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court correctly construed disputed claim terms in the patent.
2. Whether the district court improperly granted summary judgment of noninfringement after staying discovery and limiting AS&E’s ability to develop or refine its infringement case.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim construction.
- The Federal Circuit vacated the summary judgment of noninfringement.
- The Federal Circuit remanded for further proceedings, including development of the factual record relevant to infringement.

## Legal Principles

- Claim terms are generally given their ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.
- Claim construction is a legal question reviewed de novo on appeal.
- Summary judgment should not be granted where the nonmovant has not had a fair opportunity to obtain discovery on potentially material facts.
- Infringement is fact-intensive and may require technical evidence; correct claim construction does not, by itself, justify terminating the case without allowing reasonable factual development.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that the patent claims were properly construed but that the district court prematurely ended the case by granting summary judgment while discovery was stayed, requiring vacatur and remand for proceedings that allow AS&E a fair chance to develop its infringement proof under the affirmed constructions.


Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)