Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v. Polypap, S.A.R.L.

Prima Tek II, L.L.C. (defendant) held two patents for assemblies and methods for displaying floral arrangements. Prima Tek sued Polypap (plaintiff) alleging that Polypap’s product infringed its claims, particularly those requiring the assemblies to have a “floral holding material”; be without any “pot means”; and have a “crimped portion” with at least one “overlapping fold.” The district court granted summary judgment of no infringement based on its construction of “floral holding material,” which was limited to floral foam or soil. This court vacated the judgment and remanded for further consideration, finding the district court’s construction improperly restricted the term beyond its ordinary meaning. Upon remand, after giving the word “pot” its ordinary meaning, the court concluded that a French patent application disclosing flowers arranged in a mass of wetted moss showed the limitation of without any pot means. The French application discloses tightening a waterproof covering around the assembly with a cord passing through holes in the covering. However, the district court found that the reference failed to show the floral holding material after construing the limitation to require the material to hold a predetermined shape. Despite the reference’s disclosure, its drawings, and its inventor’s testimony that tightening the cord through the material creates overlapping folds, the court found the reference failed to show the crimping limitation. Accordingly, the district court concluded that Prima Tek’s patents were not invalid and infringed by Polypap. The court enjoined Polypap from further infringement, and Polypap appealed.