Berall v. Teleflex Medical Inc.

Berall v. Teleflex Medical Inc. The Federal Circuit adopted the district court's construction of "mounted on" as "fastened to the exterior of" and affirmed summary judgment of no literal or doctrine-of-equivalents infringement. The court also affirmed the transfer ruling, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding no waiver or forfeiture of Teleflex's venue objection. The decision underscores that contrasting claim language like "mounted on" versus "mounted in" can drive a narrowing construction, and that doctrine-of-equivalents theories must be limitation-specific and actually argued in the summary-judgment briefing. Affirmed. The asserted laryngoscope claims recited a camera means "mounted on" the blade, while another claim recited power supply means "mounted in" the handle. Relying on the different prepositions and consistent specification usage, the court agreed that "mounted on" meant "fastened to the exterior of," not merely attached internally with an outward view. Because the McGrath Series 5 camera was fastened to the interior of the CameraStick, no reasonable jury could find literal infringement under the adopted construction. The doctrine-of-equivalents theory failed because the patentee did not provide limitation-specific, particularized evidence and linking argument; the district court also permissibly treated a function-way-result theory incorporated only by reference to an expert report as forfeited under local rules. Teleflex did not waive or forfeit its venue objection because its earlier participation was as LMA's successor-in-interest under Rule 25(c), and it timely challenged venue when claims were first asserted against Teleflex itself. claim construction infringement waiver / forfeiture non-precedential claim construction infringement waiver / forfeiture non-precedential claim construction infringement waiver / forfeiture