The oral argument from Contech Stormwater Solutions v. Baysaver Technologies included an interesting discussion regarding the proper construction of the term “siphon.” The debate focused on whether the term requires an intermediate elevation – a high point between the fluid source and the drain output. Counsel for patentee argued that the ordinary meaning of the term can include this “up and over” structural arrangement, but does not require it. The district court had thought otherwise.
In a bit of Friday afternoon silliness, Steve Nipper and I debated the issue a bit. We decided that the old college mainstay – the 
beer bong – highlights the issue perfectly. For those that don’t know, the classic beer bong is an extremely simple device - a funnel attached to a length of hose. Beer goes in the funnel, travels through the hose and exits into an awaiting mouth. The beer travels straight down – there is no ‘intermediate elevation.’
So is a beer bong a siphon?
Counsel for patentee would argue that it is:
“[a] ’siphon’ in its ordinary meaning is the pulling of water as a result of negative pressure that is created by the falling of a column of water…there is nothing in the patent to limit the use of the term ’siphon’ to an intermediate elevation.”
Steve and I decided that it’s just a simple gravity drain, not a siphon. The classic two-beer-hat, which clearly includes an intermediate elevation, would certainly qualify, though.
Unfortunately, despite the lengthy debate during oral argument, the opinion doesn’t address the issue so we don’t know the court’s final thoughts on the meaning of the term.
Related posts:
Tags: claim construction