U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-406; Certain Lens-Fitted Film Packages

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20229 U.S. Customs and Border Protection U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20229 U.S. Customs and Border Protection HQ H084518 June 21, 2011 OT:RR:BSTC:IPR H084518 JLG CATEGORY: 19 U.S.C. § 1337; Unfair Competition Mr. Urs Stampfli Concord Keystone Trading, LLC 4000 Hollywood Blvd., Ste 555-S Hollywood, FL 33021 RE: U.S. International Trade Commission; General Exclusion Order; Investigation No. 337-TA-406; Certain Lens-Fitted Film Packages Dear Mr. Stampfli: This concerns your submissions of March 2 and July 14, 2009, as supplemented by your email of Tuesday, November 23, 2010, in which you requested a ruling, pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 177, as to whether the Polaroid “Fun Shooter” single-use camera falls within the scope of the general exclusion order issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in Investigation No. 337-TA-406 (“406 GEO”). In the aforementioned email, you maintain that Concord Keystone Trading, LLC (Concord Keystone) is a Polaroid licensee and distributes the Polaroid “Fun Shooter” single-use camera to retailers and distributors. Furthermore, it appears that the sample camera under consideration is manufactured by Xiamen Xiangjiang Plasticity Co. Ltd. (“Xiamen Xiangjiang”), produced for VastFame Camera Ltd. (“VastFame”), and distributed by Concord Keystone Trading, LLC. A sample camera was included with the ruling request. We regret the delay in responding. FACTS: ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-406 was instituted on March 25, 1998, based on a complaint filed by Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. (Fuji) of Tokyo, Japan. Fuji’s complaint alleged unfair acts in violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, by twenty-seven (27) respondents in the importation and sale of certain lens-fitted film packages (LFFPs) that infringed one or more claims of fifteen (15) patents held by Fuji. On February 24, 1999, the presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) issued his final initial determination, finding a violation of section 337 by reason of infringement of certain Fuji patents. See Certain Lens-Fitted Film Packages, Inv. No. 337-TA-406, USITC Pub. 3219, Final Initial and Recommended Determinations (February 24, 1999) (“ID”). On review, the Commission affirmed in part the ALJ’s initial determination and found a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337. The Commission determined the appropriate form of relief was a general exclusion order which prohibited entry for consumption into the United States of unlicensed LFFPs that infringe claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 11 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 4,833,495; claims 14 and 15 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 4,855,774; claims 1, 7, 8, and 15 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 4,884,087; claims 1, 19, and 22 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 4,954,857; claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 4,972,649; claims 14 and 16 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 5,063,400; claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 5,235,364; claim 1 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 5,361,111; claims 1, 15, 23, and 25 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 5,381,200; claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 5,408,288; claims 1 and 28 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 5,436,685; claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Letters Patent No. Re. 34,168; the claim of U.S. Letters Patent No. Des. 345,750; the claim of U.S. Letters Patent No. Des. 356,101; and the claim of U.S. Letters Patent No. Des. 372,722. Certain Lens-Fitted Film Packages, Inv. No. 337-TA-406, USITC Pub. 3219, General Exclusion Order at 1-2 (June 2, 1999). On June 27, 2001, after issuance of the general exclusion order, Fuji filed a complaint with the ITC requesting enforcement and advisory proceedings to determine whether certain entities had violated the 406 GEO. See Certain Lens-Fitted Film Packages, Inv. No. 337-TA-406, Complaint for Enforcement Proceedings under Rule 210.75, a Petition for Modification under Rule 210.76 and/or Request for Advisory Opinion under Rule 210.79. Specifically, the validity of claim 15 of the ‘087 patent was addressed during these proceedings, and on remand, the ITC concluded that the preamble to claim 15 was a limitation. A number of the patents have expired since this time, thus the remaining patents at issue include: Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,361,111; Claims 1, 15, 23, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 5,381,200; Claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 5,408,288; and Claims 1 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 5,436,685 As indicated above, the single-use camera at issue is the Polaroid “Fun Shooter” flash, model FS73. The “Fun Shooter” camera is a plastic 35-mm preloaded camera, which can be opened with the use of a tool or sharp knife, and consists of three main parts: a main body portion, a front cover, and a rear cover. The front and rear cover are attached to the main body by hinges, and the main body has all the components typically associated with the operation of a camera. Specifically, the main body is equipped with a taking lens, front and rear viewfinder, film advance mechanism incorporating a thumb-wheel and counting display, a shutter mechanism, and a cassette and film roll chamber which house the film cassette and photographic roll, respectively. Mounted to the main body is a rectangular shaped circuit board with a flash unit on the front right-hand side and a main capacitor vertically attached at the lower left-hand side. An AA-type battery is located under the main body portion between the cassette and film roll chamber, and is covered with a strip of plastic that is not attached to the camera’s main body or front and rear covers. As such, upon detaching the plastic strip (i.e. battery cover), the battery can be removed without disassembling the camera. The front and rear cover both have openings that correspond to certain camera components on the main body. The taking lens, front view finder, and flash components fit into or through the inner surface of the front cover, and the rear viewfinder and thumb-wheel fit into or through the rear cover. The camera is preloaded with “135 type” photographic unexposed film that resides in a film-receiving canister, similar to those in which photographic film is normally sold at retail. The film is drawn out from the film cassette and wound in a roll around a spool contained in a film supply chamber opposite the film-receiving canister. When a photograph is taken, film winds back into the film cassette until all the frames have been exposed. A label is affixed to the front and back of the camera containing, among other things, branding and instructions regarding use of the camera, as well as language cautioning against opening the camera and requiring the user to send the entire camera to a photo dealer for processing. Upon disassembling the camera, however, it appears that the film canister can be removed and sent to the photo finisher. Photographs of the sample submitted for our analysis are displayed below.



ISSUE: The issue presented is whether the Polaroid “Fun Shooter” single-use camera, model FS73, infringes any of the relevant patents at issue and therefore falls within the scope of the ITC’s general exclusion order in Investigation No. 337-TA-406, such that they would be excluded from entry for consumption into the United States. LAW AND ANALYSIS: The ITC has authority to conduct investigations into imported articles that allegedly infringe United States patents and impose remedies if the accused products are found to be infringing. See 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B), (b)(1), (d), (f). Specifically, 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d) provides the Commission authority to direct the exclusion from entry of articles found to be infringing. Moreover, when the ITC determines that there has been a violation of section 337, as amended, it may issue two types of exclusion orders: a limited exclusion order and/or a general exclusion order. See Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 474 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Both types of orders direct CBP to bar infringing products from entering the country. See Yingbin-Nature (Guangdong) Wood Indus. Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 535 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008). A limited exclusion order is “limited” in that it only applies to the specific parties before the ITC in the investigation. Id. In contrast, a general exclusion order bars the importation of infringing products by everyone, regardless of whether they were respondents in the Commission’s investigation. Id. A general exclusion order is only appropriate if two exceptional circumstances apply. See Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340, 1356 (Fed Cir. 2008). A general exclusion order may be issued only if (1) “necessary to prevent circumvention of a limited exclusion order,” or (2) “there is a pattern of violation of this section and it is difficult to identify the source of infringing products.” 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2); see also Kyocera, 545 F.3d at 1356 (“If a complainant wishes to obtain an exclusion order operative against articles of non-respondents, it must seek a GEO by satisfying the heightened burdens of §§ 1337(d)(2)(A) and (B).”). As stated above, the 406 GEO issued by the ITC provides, in part, that: Lens-fitted film packages (“LFFPs”), also known as one-time use cameras, single-use cameras and disposable cameras, covered by one or more of claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 11 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 4,833,495; claims 14 and 15 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 4,855,774; claims 1, 7, 8, and 15 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 4,884,087; claims 1, 19, and 22 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 4,954,857; claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 4,972,649; claims 14 and 16 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 5,063,400; claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 5,235,364; claim 1 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 5,361,111; claims 1, 15, 23, and 25 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 5,381,200; claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 5,408,288; claims 1 and 28 of U.S. Letters Patent No. 5,436,685; claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Letters Patent No. Re. 34,168; the claim of U.S. Letters Patent No. Des. 345,750; the claim of U.S. Letters Patent No. Des. 356,101; and the claim of U.S. Letters Patent No. Des. 372,722 are excluded from entry for consumption, into the United States for the remaining term of the patents, except under license of the patent owner or as provided by law. See Certain Lens-Fitted Film Packages, Inv. No. 337-TA-406, USITC Pub. 3219, General Exclusion Order at 1-2 (June 2, 1999). The ITC’s 406 order is typical of general exclusion orders, speaking in terms of patent claims rather than parties and/or infringing products. See Yingbin-Nature, 535 F.3d at 1331. The 406 GEO directs CBP to exclude LFFPs, regardless of the manufacturers or importers, which infringe the patents included above. Accordingly, since the ITC issued a general exclusion order based on the additional findings required by 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(2), whether or not VastFame any other parties to the import transaction were named as respondents to the original investigation is immaterial to the question of whether the sample cameras fall within the scope of the 406 GEO. The only pertinent question is whether the cameras at issue infringe any of the relevant patents. See Sealed Air Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 645 F.2d 976, 985 (C.C.P.A. 1981) (“An exclusion order operates against goods, not parties.”); see also VastFame Camera, Ltd. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 386 F.3d 1108, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“A general exclusion order broadly prohibits entry of articles that infringe the relevant claims of a listed patent without regard to whether the persons importing such articles were parties to, or were related to parties to, the investigation that led to issuance of the general exclusion order.”). Significantly, the Federal Circuit has recognized that issuance of a general exclusion order by the ITC binds named parties and non-named parties alike and shifts to would-be importers, “as a condition of entry, the burden of establishing noninfringement.” Hyundai Electronics Industries Co. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 899 F.2d 1204, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the burden is on the importer to establish that the single-use cameras at issue do not infringe any of the relevant patents. UTILITY PATENT INFRINGEMENT Patent infringement determinations for utility patents entail two-steps. The first step is to interpret the meaning and scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed. The second step is to compare the properly construed claims to the accused device. See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The first step is a question of law; the second step is a question of fact. See Freedman Seating Co. v. American Seating Company, 420 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In patent law, there are two types of infringement: direct and indirect infringement. Direct infringement includes two varieties: literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Literal infringement is when every limitation recited in a claim is found in the accused device. See Strattec Security Corp. v. General Automotive Specialty Co., 126 F.3d 1411, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Under the doctrine of equivalents, “a product or process that does not literally infringe upon the express terms of a patent claim may nonetheless be found to infringe if there is ‘equivalence’ between the elements of the accused product or process and the claimed elements of the patented invention.” Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 21 (1997) (citing Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605, 609 (1950)). The Federal Circuit applies two articulations of the test for equivalence – the insubstantial differences test and the function-way-result test. See Voda v. Cordis Corp., 536 F.3d 1311, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (explaining that different phrasing may be “more suitable to different cases, depending on their particular facts…”) (quoting Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 40). Under the insubstantial differences test, “[a]n element in the accused device is equivalent to a claim limitation if the only differences between the two are insubstantial.” Id. At 1326 (citing Honeywell International Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 370 F.3d 1131, 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Alternatively, under the function-way-result test, an element in the accused device is equivalent to a claim limitation if it “performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain substantially the same result.” Id. (citing Schoell v. Regal Marine Industries, Inc., 247 F.3d 1202, 1209-10 (Fed. Cir. 2001). However, the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel acts as a constraint to limit the application of the doctrine of equivalents. See Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 733-34 (2002) (“Prosecution history estoppel requires that the claims of a patent be interpreted in light of the proceedings in the PTO during the application process….The doctrine of equivalents allows the patentee to claim those insubstantial alterations that were not captured in drafting the original patent claim but which could be created through trivial changes. When, however, the patentee originally claimed the subject matter alleged to infringe but then narrowed the claim in response to a rejection, he may not argue that the surrendered territory comprised unforeseen subject matter that should be deemed equivalent to the literal claims of the issued patent. On the contrary, by the amendment [the patentee] recognized and emphasized the difference between the two phrases[,] . . . and the difference which [the patentee] thus disclaimed must be regarded as material. . . . [Thus,] prosecution history estoppel ensures that the doctrine of equivalents remains tied to its underlying purpose.”) (internal citations omitted). As for the scope of protection provided by the patents at issue in the 406 GEO, it is a “bedrock principle” of patent law that “the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“It is well-settled that, in interpreting an asserted claim, the court should look first to the intrinsic evidence of the record . . . first, we look to the words of the claims themselves . . . to define the scope of the patented invention.”). Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has made clear that claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, which refers specifically to the ordinary and customary meaning that the claim term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The inquiry into how a person of ordinary skill in the art understands a claim term provides an objective baseline from which to begin claim interpretation. See Innova, 381 F.3d at 1116. That starting point is based on the well-settled understanding that inventors are typically persons skilled in the field of the invention and that patents are addressed to and intended to be read by others of skill in the pertinent art. See Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. Often, this requires an examination of terms that have a particular meaning in a field of art. Id. Since the meaning of a claim term, as understood by persons of skill in the art, is often not immediately apparent, and since patentees frequently act as their own lexicographers, a court or administrative body responsible for making patent infringement determinations should look to sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would have understood a disputed claim term to mean. Id. These sources include, for example, the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification and the prosecution history, along with certain extrinsic evidence in appropriate circumstances. Id. Importantly, as stated by the Federal Circuit in Vitronics and reaffirmed in Phillips, claims must be read in light of the specification, of which they are a part, since the specification “is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Philips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582) (emphasis added); see also Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“The specification is, thus, the primary basis for construing the claims.”). Despite the specification’s significance, caution must be taken to avoid impermissibly reading a limitation from the specification into the claims of the patent. See Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“We recognize that there is sometimes a fine line between reading a claim in light of the specification, and reading a limitation into the claim from the specification.”); see also Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 987 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Where a specification does not require a limitation, that limitation should not be read from the specification into the claims.”) (emphasis in original). While continuing to be mindful of this fine line between interpretation and importation, the Federal Circuit explained in Phillips that: [T]he line between construing terms and importing limitations can be discerned with reasonable certainty and predictability if the court’s focus remains on understanding how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim terms. For instance, although the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.…In particular, we have expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment….That is not just because section 112 of the Patent Act requires that the claims themselves set forth the limits of the patent grant, but also because persons of ordinary skill in the art rarely would confine their definitions of terms to the exact representations depicted in the embodiments. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, the Federal Circuit has provided the framework outlined above for construing utility patent claims. With this framework established, the analysis turns to the matter at hand. As stated previously, the remaining patents at issue include: Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,361,111; Claims 1, 15, 23, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 5,381,200; Claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 5,408,288; and Claims 1 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 5,436,685 The first step in making a utility patent infringement determination, that of interpreting the claims, has been completed for certain claim limitations by the ALJ and by the Commission on review. Thus, the second step in the infringement analysis, which involves a question of fact, requires CBP to compare the properly construed claims to the allegedly infringing device. See Playtex Prods., Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 400 F.3d 901, 905-906 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc)). As previously noted, for infringement to be found the court must determine that every claim limitation is found in the accused device. Id. at 906 (citing Deering Precision Instruments, LLC v. Vector Distribution Systems, Inc., 347 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Claim Construction and Infringement of Utility Patents The starting point in the analysis is the preamble to the claims. The Federal Circuit has long eschewed the use of an absolute rule or test in determining whether a preamble is a limitation. Bell Communications Research Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 621 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Rather, the effect preamble language should be given can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the patent as described in the specification and illuminated in the prosecution history to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim. Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Electric U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Allen Engineering Corp. v. Bartell Industries, Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In general, a preamble to a claim is construed as a limitation if it gives life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. See Symantec Corp. v. Computer Associates International, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); Schram Glass Manufacturing Co. v. Homer Brooke Co., 249 F. 228, 232-33, cert denied, 247 U.S. 520 (1918). “[P]reamble language limits a claim if it recites not merely a context in which the invention may be used, but the essence of the invention without which performance of the recited steps is nothing but an academic exercise.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed Cir. 2003). A preamble is not limiting, however, “when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.” Am. Med. Sys. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358-1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801,808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). The preamble is not a limitation if it merely states the intended use or purpose of an invention. Symantec Corp., 522 F.3d at 1288. The term “lens-fitted film package,” which is found in the preamble of every claim in issue, was not in dispute in the original investigation nor was it construed in the Commission Opinion or the ALJ's ID. In its Opinion, the Commission stated the following: The products at issue in this investigation are inexpensive, disposable, single use cameras, technically referred to as “lens-fitted film packages” or “LFFPs.” LFFPs are generally constructed of a shell made of a plastic material such as polystyrene. They are equipped with a button-activated shutter, a lens, a viewfinder, a film advance mechanism, and optional flash units and buttons. An outer cardboard cover, containing printed information such as branding and instructions, encases the shell. LFFPs are preloaded with film and a film cartridge. When pictures are taken, the exposed film winds into the film cartridge. After taking pictures, a typical consumer brings the entire LFFP to a film processor to have the film developed and receives back only negatives and prints, not the LFFP shell and its contents. Certain Lens-Fitted Film Packages, Inv. No. 337-TA-406, USITC Pub. 3219, Commission Opinion at 2 (June 2, 1999); see also Certain Lens-Fitted Film Packages, Inv. No. 337-TA-406, USITC Pub. 3219, Final Initial and Recommended Determinations, Additional Findings, 214 (February 24, 1999). The parties in the Consolidated Enforcement and Advisory Opinion Proceedings, however, disputed the meaning of the preamble term “lens-fitted film package,” arguing whether an LFFP was limited to preloaded cameras that cannot be reloaded with film after their initial use. Relying upon his findings in the ID and intrinsic evidence, the ALJ found that “having the capability of being reloaded with film does not mean that a camera is not an LFFP.” Certain Lens-Fitted Film Packages, Inv. No. 337-TA-406, Consolidated Enforcement and Advisory Opinion Proceedings, Enforcement Initial and Recommended Determination at 20-21 (August 27, 2002) (emphasis added). The ALJ determined that an LFFP is “a relatively inexpensive, disposable camera which is preloaded with film and a film cartridge so that after use, all of the film has been advanced into the film cartridge.” Enforcement Initial Determination at 19, 42. Further, the ALJ noted that in certain proceedings in the ITC’s investigation, the ALJ and the Federal Circuit determined that the preamble to claim 15 of the ‘087 patent provided “positive limitations to . . . [the] claim . . . [and that] without the preamble, claim 15 of the ‘087 patent could describe merely a camera involving, a film cartridge, a film cassette, a film spooling device, or film testing machinery.” Certain Lens-Fitted Film Packages, Inv. No. 337-TA-406, Consolidated Enforcement and Advisory Opinion Proceedings (Remand), Final Initial Determination (September 9, 2005). Moreover, the Federal Circuit found that the ‘087 patent was “directed to the [structure] of an entire LFFP.” Jazz Photo Corp. v. International Trade Commission, 264 F.3d 1094, 1100 (2001). In the remanded consolidated proceedings to determine the validity of claim 15 of the ‘087 patent, the ITC affirmed the ALJ’s claim construction concluding that the preamble to claim 15 of the ‘087 patent was a limitation. In its post hearing brief, the ITC’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII) Investigative Attorney maintained that it is only by the preamble that one knows that the subject matter defined by the ‘087 claims is a camera. See Certain Lens-Fitted Film Packages, Inv. No. 337-TA-406, Consolidated Enforcement and Advisory Opinion Proceedings (Remand), Posthearing Brief of the Commission Investigative Staff, 7 (July 19, 2005) (noting that the expert proffered by Fuji, Alfred H. Bellows, testified that the term “LFFP” in the preamble provides structural limitations to the claim such as a lens, shutter, and advance mechanism necessary for the invention to work, and that without the preamble, claim 15 of the ‘087 patent could describe a camera, a film cartridge, a film cassette, a film spooling device, or film testing machinery). Following Federal Circuit precedent, the Investigative Attorney considered the specification of the ‘087 patent, the language of various priority applications of the ‘087 patent, and the divisional patent application that led to U.S. Patent No. 4,954,857, which shares the same specification as the ‘087 patent, and determined that the preamble of claim 15 of the ‘087 patent provides the essence of the invention and hence should be given meaning in claim 15. Accordingly, the specification, the entire prosecution history (including the priority applications and follow-on applications), and the prior art cited therein demonstrate that the patent applicants invented and intended to claim a lens-fitted photographic film package, such that the term serves as a separate claim limitation. Id. at 8. Therefore, the ALJ found “that the preamble of claim 15 is necessary to give meaning to claim 15 and is a limitation . . . .” Id. at 11. The term “lens-fitted film package” is found in all of the claims at issue in this request. In the initial EID, the ALJ determined that a “lens-fitted film package” is not limited to a single-use non-reloadable camera. The sample camera herein is a plastic 35-mm preloaded camera consisting of a main body, and a front and rear cover fitted to the main body by hinges. The main body of the camera contains a lens, viewfinder, film advance mechanism incorporating a thumb-wheel and film frame counting display, flash unit, shutter operating mechanism, and a film-receiving canister and film roll chamber which house the film cassette and photographic roll, respectively. A “135 type” photographic cassette of (unexposed) film is loaded into the film-receiving canister which is drawn out from the cassette and wound in a roll around a spool contained in a film chamber opposite the canister. When a photograph is taken, the film winds from the chamber into the canister, and when all of the film is exposed the entire camera is sent to the photo lab for processing. However, upon disassembling the camera it appears the film canister may be removed and its contents processed. In light of the various findings in the record detailed above, including the ALJ’s review that the capacity of a camera to be reloaded with film does not prevent finding the camera in question to be an LFFP and the ALJ’s characterization of the features of an LFFP, we determine the sample Polaroid “Fun Shooter” camera is properly construed to be an LFFP. Moreover, we note that the sample camera under consideration has a construction similar to the embodiment claimed by the patents at issue and is also similar in general appearance to the cameras found to infringe at the ITC. Accordingly, we next consider whether the sample camera is covered by any of the patents at issue in the 406 GEO. United States Patent No. 5,361,111 United States Patent No. 5,361,111 (“‘111 patent”) entitled “Lens-Fitted Photographic Film Unit Means Preventing Unintended Actuation of Pushbuttons,” issued on November 1, 1994. The ‘111 patent has 11 claims. Only claim 1, an independent claim, was found to be infringed and identified in the 406 GEO. The abstract of the ‘111 patent reads: A lens-fitted photographic film unit has a pushbutton such as a flash button or a shutter release button. The pushbutton is formed integrally with a front wall of the film unit but partially separated therefrom by a slit. The pushbutton is surrounded by a ridge-shaped barrier which prevents it from being accidentally depressed by neighboring articles. The barrier projects outwardly from the front wall (emphasis added). Claim 1 contains two limitations. It recites: 1. A lens-fitted photographic film unit containing a photographic film and being adapted to take photographs, comprising: at least one plastic pushbutton formed integrally with a wall of said film unit, only a portion of said pushbutton, said pushbutton being separated from said wall by a slit which surrounds most but not all of said pushbutton, said pushbutton being connected to said film unit by an integral bridge, said pushbutton being adapted to be depressed inwardly of the wall from an initial position and to move back outwardly to said initial position when released; and a barrier formed on an outer surface of said wall surrounding said pushbutton only partially, said barrier projecting outwardly relative to an actuating surface of said pushbutton is in said initial position, said barrier terminating in two ends disposed on opposite sides of said bridge. U.S. Patent No. 5,361,111 col. 4 l.23 (emphasis added). The ‘111 patent covers features that prevent inadvertent actuation of the shutter trip button or the flash charging button.” ID at 69. The elements of this claim include at least one pushbutton in the form of a flash button or a shutter release button, either of which is formed as a portion of the camera’s outside wall, and where the pushbutton is partially surrounded by a barrier to protect the button from unintended pressing. Specifically, the first limitation of claim 1 requires the pushbutton to be an indivisible part of the film unit wall, separated only by a slit that surrounds the majority of the pushbutton and connected to the film unit wall by an integral bridge. The second limitation requires a barrier that partially surrounds the pushbutton of the film unit wall. Below are drawings of the ’111 patent, with certain parts labeled according to the patent specification, as well as images of the sample cameras under consideration.

y As evidenced in the images above, neither the shutter operating button nor the flash button of the sample camera under consideration are integral portions of the film unit wall. Moreover, there are no barriers surrounding either pushbutton. Therefore, it is determined that the “Fun Shooter” camera does not satisfy the elements of the above-referenced claim, and thus does not fall within the scope of claim 1 of the ‘111 patent. United States Patent No. 5,381,200 United States Patent No. 5,381,200 (“‘200 patent”) entitled “Lens-Fitted Photographic Film Unit” issued on January 10, 1995. The ‘200 patent has 25 claims. Claims, 1, 15, 23, and 25, which are all independent claims, were found to be infringed and identified in the 406 GEO. The object of the ’200 patent “[is] to provide a lens-fitted photographic film unit having a single kick-type shutter blade appropriate for its miniaturization, to provide a lens-fitted photographic film unit in which light is prevented from entering through the gap between the shutter blade and the shutter opening, and to provide a lens-fitted photographic film unit in which the shutter blade can be driven smoothly.” ID at 70; U.S. Patent No. 5,381,200 col2. l.25-36 (filed May 17, 1993). The abstract of the ‘200 patent reads: A lens-fitted photographic film unit is provided with a shutter blade having a claw portion and a masking portion for opening and closing a shutter opening formed in the front surface of the base section of the film unit. The shutter blade is bent between the claw portion and the masking portion in a crank-shape such that the claw portion is swung in a rearward plane different from that of the masking portion, making it possible to form the film unit thinner. In a preferred embodiment, the masking portion is provided on its rear with a recess having a tapered surface. During swinging, the tapered surface will not be in contact with the projection surrounding the shutter opening, enabling smooth swinging of the shutter blade, when the shutter blade is in the closed position, the projection fits in the recess. The shutter blade is formed on an edge portion with a protrusion for opening and closing a stop aperture. In the closed position, half of the masking portion is surrounded by a semicircular light-shielding member. Claim 1 contains three limitations. It recites: 1. A lens-fitted photographic film unit having a preloaded photographic film on which an image is formed through a taking lens system upon depression of a shutter release button, said film unit comprising: a shutter mount and a projecting portion projecting forward of said shutter mount along an optical axis of the taking lens system, said projecting portion having a flat surface on a front side thereof; a shutter opening on said optical axis formed in said flat surface of said projecting portion; and a shutter blade attached to said shutter mount, said shutter blade having a claw portion, an arm portion and a masking portion for opening and closing said shutter opening, said shutter blade being bent in a crank shape in the middle of said arm portion in a direction along said optical axis such that said masking portion is disposed farther forward than said claw portion so as to correspond in shape to said shutter mount and said projecting portion. U.S. Patent No. 5,381,200 col.10 l.32 (emphasis added). Claim 15 contains three limitations. It recites: 15. A lens-fitted photographic film unit having a preloaded photographic film on which an image is formed through a taking lens system upon depression of a shutter release button, said film unit comprising: a shutter mount having a flat projection projecting forward along an optical axis of said taking lens system; a shutter opening formed in said projection on said optical axis of said taking lens system; and a shutter blade having a claw portion and a masking portion for opening and closing said shutter opening and being swingable between a closed position and an open position, said masking portion having on a surface facing said shutter opening a recess and a semicircular rim, said rim being disposed on the side of a leading edge portion of said masking portion when said shutter blade swings from said closed position to said open position, said recess having a tapered surface formed approximately in a half portion of said recess on the side of a trailing edge portion opposite to said leading edge portion of said masking portion such that the thickness of said masking portion decreases in a direction toward said trailing edge portion so as to prevent said tapered surface from being brought into contact with said projection formed around said shutter opening during swinging of said shutter blade, said projection fitting in said recess when said shutter blade is in said closed position. U.S. Patent No. 5,381,200 Col.12 l.3 (emphasis added). Claim 23 contains five limitations. It recites: 23. A lens-fitted photographic film unit having a preloaded photographic film on which an image is formed through a taking lens system upon depression of a shutter release button, said film unit comprising: a shutter mount; a shutter opening formed in said shutter mount; a shutter blade having a claw portion and a masking portion for opening and closing said shutter opening and being swingable between a closed position and an open position; a stop aperture disposed in front of said shutter blade; and a protrusion in said masking portion on a side of a trailing edge portion when said shutter blade swings from said closed position to said open position, said protrusion protruding toward said stop aperture and swinging so as to traverse said stop aperture during swinging of said shutter blade. U.S. Patent No. 5,381,200 col.13 l.12 (emphasis added). Claim 25 contains three limitations. It recites: 25. A lens-fitted photographic film unit having a preloaded photographic film on which an image is formed through a taking lens system upon depression of a shutter release button, said film unit comprising: a shutter mount having a flat projection projecting forward along an optical axis of said taking lens system; a shutter opening formed in said projection on said optical axis of said taking lens system; and a shutter blade having a claw portion and a masking portion for opening and closing said shutter opening and being swingable between a closed position and an open position, said masking portion having on a surface facing said shutter opening a recess and a semicircular rim, said rim being disposed on the side of a leading edge portion of said masking portion when said shutter blade swings from said closed position to said open position, said projection fitting in said recess when said shutter blade is in said closed position. U.S. Patent No. 5,381,200 col.14 l.7 (emphasis added). The principle features of claim 1 are a shutter mount, shutter opening, and shutter blade attached to the shutter mount. The third limitation of the claim requires a shutter blade having a claw portion, arm portion, and a masking portion, wherein the arm portion is bent in the direction of the optical axis to provide a crank-shaped shutter blade. Depicted below is a drawing from the ‘200 patent which represents an exploded perspective view of the photo-taking unit of the film housing with various parts labeled according to the ‘200 patent’s specification.
 In the initial investigation, the ALJ did not construe the claims of the ‘200 patent as there was no dispute regarding the interpretation of the claims. The ‘200 patent, however, was at issue in the ITC Enforcement Proceedings. In the EID to these proceedings, the ALJ determined that several cameras, including those imported by Highway Holdings (HH type camera), Message Group (MG type camera), and CSI/Custom Design (CSI type camera) infringed claim 1 of the ‘200 patent. In concluding that the HH type camera infringed claim 1 of the ‘200 patent, the ALJ dismissed the importer’s argument that the shutter blade did not meet the third limitation of the claim because it lacked an arm portion and a crank-shaped section. Rather, the ALJ found that the HH camera had all of the elements described in the third limitation – a shutter blade bent in a “crank shape” having an arm portion, claw portion, and masking portion. See Certain Lens-Fitted Film Packages, Inv. No. 337-TA-406, Consolidated Enforcement and Advisory Opinion Proceedings, Enforcement Initial and Recommended Determination at 80-81 (August 27, 2002). In respect of the MG and CSI cameras, the ALJ found that both cameras infringed claim 1 of the ‘200 patent, noting that the importer of the MG type camera had not put forth any arguments against infringement. As previously emphasized, the Federal Circuit has reiterated that the specification “is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Philips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582). The specification describes the shutter mount of the ‘200 patent as having the following arrangement: The shutter mount 30 is formed integrally with a projected portion 32 projecting in the forward direction of the optical axis 15. The projected portion 32 further has a projection 33 slightly projecting in the same manner as the projected portion 32. A shutter operating [sic] 34 is formed in the projected portion. 33 ‘200 patent, col. 4 l.67-68; col. 5 l.1- 4. Thus, a portion of the shutter mount should protrude outward with a raised rim (i.e. projection/protrusion) surrounding the shutter opening. Below is a drawing of the shutter mount, as shown in the ‘200 patent specification, exhibits of the shutter mounts located in cameras previously found to infringe the ‘200 patent, and a photograph of the sample camera under consideration.




An examination of the Polaroid “Fun Shooter” camera shown above illustrates that the shutter mount satisfies each element of the first and second limitation of claim 1. The sample camera has a shutter mount with a projecting portion that has a flat surface and a raised rim surrounding the shutter opening. Furthermore, the accused cameras (HH, MG, and CSI type) that were determined to infringe claim 1 of the ‘200 patent have shutter mounts similar to those found in the cameras at issue. Thus, based on the patent specification, an analysis of infringing cameras at issue in the ITC Enforcement proceedings, and visual inspection of the cameras at issue, it is determined that the sample identified as the Polaroid “Fun Shooter” camera satisfies the first and second limitation of claim 1 of the ‘200 patent. The final question is whether the sample cameras meet the third limitation of claim 1 which claims the following: [A] shutter blade attached to [the] shutter mount [that has] a claw portion, arm portion, and masking portion for opening and closing said shutter opening, said shutter blade being bent in a crank shape in the middle of said arm portion in a direction along said optical axis such that said masking portion is disposed farther forward than said claw portion so as to correspond in shape to said shutter mount and said projecting portion. ‘200 patent, col. 10 l.42-50. Below is a drawing of the shutter blade, as shown in the ‘200 patent, as well as exhibits of the shutter blades contained in the infringing cameras (HH, MG, CSI type cameras) at issue in the ITC Enforcement Proceeding, and lastly photographs of the shutter blade found in the sample Polaroid “Fun Shooter” camera.




As discussed above, in the ITC Enforcement Proceeding, the ALJ determined that the HH, MG, and CSI type cameras infringed claim 1 of the ‘200 patent. In respect of the HH camera, the ALJ identified the masking portion, the arm portion, and the claw portion noting that the crank-shaped section of the HH type camera was evident given that the shutter mount, to which the shutter blade is attached, “[had] two distinct planes, viz. a lower one where the claw portion sits and a higher one where the masking portion sits . . . which is consistent with the shutter blade’s depiction in the HH type camera’s design drawings.” The ALJ further maintained that while the “crank portion” of the shutter blade’s arm is short in length; “it still serves the intended function of allowing the masking portion to be projected forwardly (for a more even exposure of the film) while the cocking and pivoting portion of the blade are towards the rear where they are more easily installed.” Certain Lens-Fitted Film Packages, Inv. No. 337-TA-406, Consolidated Enforcement and Advisory Opinion Proceedings, Enforcement Initial and Recommended Determination at 80-81 (August 27, 2002). The photographs above illustrate that the shutter blades contained in the sample “Fun Shooter” camera has a claw portion, arm portion, and masking portion. The arm portion of the shutter blade is not bent in a crank-shape, which is evidenced by the fact that the claw portion and masking portion are not on two distinct planes. Moreover, in prior rulings CBP determined that cameras with a shutter blade having an embodiment similar to those at issue here did not infringe claim 1 of the ‘200 patent. See HQ 473742, HQ 473743, HQ 474218, and HQ H474939. Thus, based on the patent specification, visual inspection of the cameras at issue, an analysis of cameras found to infringe claim 1 of the ‘200 patent, and prior CBP rulings, it is determined that the Polaroid “Fun Shooter” camera under consideration does not meet the third limitation of claim 1 and thus does not fall within the scope of claim 1 of the ‘200 patent. Claim 15 requires, among other things, a shutter mount, shutter opening, and a shutter blade having a claw portion and masking portion consisting of a recess with a tapered surface and a semicircular rim. The specification states that the “masking portion of the shutter blade is provided with a recess but alternatively may have a flat rear surface.” U.S. Patent No. 5,381,200 col.6 l.27-29. The specification further provides that the recess that is formed on the rear surface of the masking portion is tapered up to the protrusion such that the thickness of the masking portion is reduced toward the right edge portion of the shutter blade. See U.S. Patent No. 5,381,200 col.8. As mentioned above, the specification is “highly relevant to the claim construction analysis . . . it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Philips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582); see also Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“The specification is, thus, the primary basis for construing the claims.”).
Although the shutter blade found in the camera under consideration consists of claw portion and masking portion, the masking region is not bordered by a semicircular rim. As such, the Polaroid “Fun Shooter” camera does not satisfy each limitation of the claim and thus does not fall within the scope of claim 15 of the ‘200 patent. Claim 23 of the ‘200 patent recites as its fifth limitation, the following: [A] protrusion in said masking portion on a side of a trailing edge portion when said shutter blade swings from said closed position to said open position, said protrusion protruding toward said stop aperture and swinging so as to traverse said stop aperture during swinging of said shutter blade. The sample camera at issue does not have a protrusion on the masking portion of the shutter blade (as shown in the photographs above). Accordingly, the Polaroid “Fun Shooter” camera does not satisfy the fifth limitation of the claim and thus does not fall within the scope of claim 23 of the '200 patent. Claim 25 is similar to claim 15 in that the principal features of the claim are a shutter mount having a flat projection, a shutter opening formed in said projection, and a shutter blade having a claw portion and a masking portion wherein the masking portion has on its surface a recess and a semicircular rim, the rim being disposed on the side of a leading edge segment of the masking portion. As previously noted, the shutter blade contained in the cameras does not include a semicircular rim on the surface of the masking region. As such, claim 25 is not satisfied. Each limitation of the aforementioned claims is not present in the sample camera at issue. Therefore, based on the patent specification, visual inspection of the camera at issue, an analysis of cameras found to infringe certain claims of the ‘200 patent, and prior CBP rulings, it is determined that the Polaroid “Fun Shooter” camera does not infringe claims 1, 15, 23, or 25 of the ‘200 patent. United States Patent No. 5,408,288 United States Patent No. 5,408,288 (“‘288 patent”) entitled “Photographic Film Cassette and Lens-Fitted Photographic Film Unit Using the Same” issued on April 18, 1995. ‘288 patent has 8 claims. Claims 1 and 7, which are independent claims, were found to be infringed and identified in the 406 GEO. The abstract of the ‘288 patent reads: A lens-fitted photographic film unit has a film supply chamber preloaded with unexposed photographic film. A cassette-containing chamber contains a film cassette. The film after exposure is wound on a spool of the cassette. The film unit is provided with a mechanism for exposing the film in a succession of frames. An axial hole is formed in an upper end of the spool. Knurled inner teeth are formed inside the axial hole. A wind-up wheel is mounted on the film unit over the cassette-containing chamber to be externally operable for rotation. A drive shaft on the wind-up wheel protrudes into the cassette-containing chamber, and is received in the axial hole. Knurled outer teeth about the drive shaft mesh with the inner teeth on the spool. The drive shaft and spool will thus mesh with each other in any relatively rotated position thereof, which avoids loss of usable film. Infringed claim 1 has five limitations. It recites: 1. A lens-fitted photographic film unit, in which a body contains photographic film drawn out of a cassette in a form of a roll, a film winding wheel is rotated after each exposure to rotate a spool in said cassette, and thereby said film is wound back into said cassette, said film unit comprising: an axial hole formed in one distal end of said spool; a pair of engaging plates, projected from said axial hole in a position axially downward inside said axial hole, and shaped in a rotationally symmetrical fashion at a straight angle with respect to an axis of said axial hole; and a key way defined by a plurality of inner teeth formed on an inside of said axial hole and axially upward from said engaging plates; wherein said winding wheel includes a drive shaft integrally formed therewith and fitted in said axial hole; and said drive shaft includes a plurality of engaging teeth formed thereabout, arranged at a regular pitch, extended axially, and respectively engaged with said inner teeth. U.S. Patent No. 5,408,288 col.7 l.2 (emphasis added). Infringed claim 7 has five limitations. It recites: 7. A lens-fitted photographic film unit, in which a body contains photographic film drawn out of a cassette in a form of a roll, a film winding wheel is rotated after each exposure to rotate a spool in said cassette, and thereby said film is wound back into said cassette, said film unit comprising: an axial hole formed in one distal end of said spool; a pair of engaging plates, formed on an inside defined by said axial hole in said spool, and shaped in a rotationally symmetrical fashion at a straight angle in a position axially outward inside said axial hole; a plurality of inner teeth formed inside said axial hole, arranged circularly at a regular pitch, shaped to have a substantially triangular section, and extended axially and upward over said engaging plates; a drive shaft integrally formed with said winding wheel and fitted in said axial hole while said cassette is contained in said body; and a plurality of outer teeth formed about said drive shaft, shaped to have a substantially triangular section engaged with said inner teeth, and extended axially, said drive shaft fitted in said axial hole to engage said inner teeth with said outer teeth for transmission of rotation of said winding wheel to said spool. U.S. Patent No. 5,408,288 col.8 l.9 (emphasis added). Claims 1 and 7 of the ‘288 patent require, among other elements, a film cassette wherein an “axial hole” is formed in one distal end of the cassette spool with a plurality of inner teeth formed inside the axial hole, and a corresponding plurality of peripheral teeth on the drive shaft of the wind-up wheel. Further, the specification indicates that the “inner teeth is provided with sloping faces spaced apart by cylindrical faces inside the spool [such that] [w]hen a drive shaft is inserted in the axial hole, the sloping faces guide the drive shaft.” U.S. Patent No. 5,408,288 col.4 l.30-34. As noted previously, the specification is the primary basis for construing patent claims. See Philips, 415 F.3d at 1315; see also Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582). Therefore, claims 1 and 7 require the inner teeth to be on the inner portion of the axial hole. The film cassette and the drive shaft are the primary features at issue in the ‘288 patent. Depicted below is a photograph of these features, as they appear on the sample “Fun Shooter” camera, as well as a drawing found in the ‘288 patent. 

As illustrated in the images above, the film cassette spool of the sample camera has several equally-spaced protrusions on the end of the axial hole. However, there are no are no inner teeth on the inside portion of the axial hole. Additionally, the drive shaft in the sample camera does not include a multitude of outer teeth to engage with inner teeth formed in the axial hole. Given that the sample camera does not have all of the features and elements of the aforementioned claims, it does not satisfy claims 1 or 7 of the ‘288 patent. United States Patent No. 5,436,685 United States Patent No. 5,436,685 (“‘685 patent”) entitled “Lens-Fitted Photographic Film Unit Whose Parts Can Be Recycled Easily” issued on July 25, 1995. The abstract of the ‘685 patent reads: A lens-fitted photographic film unit is constituted of a film containing unit, a photo-taking unit, and a front cover. The film containing unit is formed from plastic and has an exposure aperture, a film supplying chamber and a film take-up chamber. A shutter mechanism and a wind-up stopping mechanism have metallic parts and are assembled together into the photo-taking unit, so as to facilitate classification of plastic units and metal-containing units at the time of recycling. The photo-taking unit is removably secured to the front of the plastic film containing unit. In a preferred embodiment, a flash device is removably mounted on the film containing unit. Infringed claim 1 has three limitations. It recites: 1. A lens-fitted photographic film unit which has resinous and metal parts and which has an exposure aperture, a film supplying chamber for containing unexposed photographic film, and a film take-up chamber for taking up said film after exposure, in which said film supplying chamber and said film take-up chamber are disposed horizontally on opposite sides of said exposure aperture, and which has a taking lens, a shutter mechanism, a film wind-up wheel for winding up said film as exposed, and a wind-up stopping mechanism for preventing said wind-up wheel from rotating after film is fed by one frame after each exposure by rotation of said wind-up wheel, said film unit comprising: a resinous film containing unit in which said exposure aperture, said film supplying chamber and said film take-up chamber are formed; a single photo-forming unit including said shutter mechanism and said wind-up stopping mechanism, said single photo-forming unit having metal parts and being secured to said film containing unit but being removable as a single unit from said film containing unit so as to facilitate removal of metal parts from resinous parts; and a front cover secured to said film containing unit in front of said photo-taking unit. U.S. Patent No. 5,436,685 col.7 l.4 (emphasis added). Infringed claim 28 has three limitations. It recites: A lens-fitted photographic film unit which has resinous and metal parts and which has an exposure aperture, a film supplying chamber for containing unexposed photographic film, and a film take-up chamber for taking up said film after exposure, in which said film supplying chamber and said film take-up chamber are disposed horizontally on opposite sides of said exposure aperture, and which has a taking lens, a shutter blade, a driven sprocket wheel driven in rotation by movement of said film, shutter cocking means for cocking said shutter blade in response to rotation of said sprocket wheel, shutter driving means for driving said shutter blade upon release of said shutter cocking means, a film wind-up wheel for winding up exposed film into said take-up chamber, and a wind-up stopping mechanism for preventing said wind-up wheel from rotating after said film is wound up by one frame after each exposure by rotation of said wind-up wheel, said film unit comprising: a resinous film containing unit in which said exposure aperture, said film supplying chamber and said film take-up chamber are formed; a single photo-forming unit including said shutter blade, said sprocket wheel, said shutter cocking means, said shutter driving means, and said wind-up stopping mechanism, said single photo-forming unit having metal parts and being secured to said film containing unit but being removable as a single unit from said film containing unit so as to facilitate removal of metal parts from resinous parts; and a front cover secured to said film containing unit in front of said photo-forming unit. U.S Patent No. 5,436,685 col.10 l.9 (emphasis added). The ‘685 patent “discloses that the objects of the patent are to provide a lens-fitted photographic film unit of which the part can be recycled easily; to provide a lens-fitted photographic film of which the parts can be classified into those to be remodeled and those to be reused; and to provide a lens-fitted photographic film of which the performance is not worsened even when the parts as reused are reassembled into it.” ID at 74; U.S. Patent No. 5,436,685 col.2 l. 32- 43. Claims 1 and 28 of the ‘685 patent are directed to a single use camera with a photo-taking unit containing metal parts, a shutter mechanism, and a wind-up stopping mechanism which is easily separable from the film containing unit (i.e. film path and film chambers). Figures from the ‘685 patent specification and digital images of the “Fun Shooter” sample camera are depicted below.
The sample camera contains a middle body section which houses many of the elements associated with the operation of a camera, including the components noted in the above-referenced claims such as a shutter mechanism and a wind-up stopping mechanism (i.e., wind-up wheel or thumb wheel). The components attached to the main body portion of the camera, however, are integral with the film-containing unit and may not be removed. Consequently, the “Fun Shooter” camera does not satisfy all of the elements of the noted claims, and thus do not fall within the scope of claims 1 and 28 of the ‘685 patent. HOLDING: The Polaroid “Fun Shooter” camera (model FS 73) does not meet all the limitations of any of the claims of the utility patents at issue. Therefore, we conclude that the “Fun Shooter” camera does not fall within the scope of the ITC’s general exclusion order in Investigation. No. 337-TA-406 and may be entered for consumption into the United States. Sincerely, Charles R. Steuart, Chief Intellectual Property Rights Branch