We don't usually write about claim construction opinions, because they tend to be fact-specific and tough to generalize to other cases.
But there were a few interesting points in a claim construction opinion issued by Judge Andrews on Friday, and I thought it was worth outlining them here:
- While the judges are typically somewhat adverse to extrinsic evidence, Judge Andrews asked the parties to submit letters outlining "textbook[]" style definitions of the a term, "stability," and said that he found the letters helpful. He adopted the construction that "capture[d] the concept of static stability" as set forth in the textbook definitions.
- The Court relied on plaintiff's expert to find that a claim was not indefinite. From what I've seen, good expert testimony can sometimes be a really helpful for patentees on indefiniteness. Even if an accused infringer offers no expert, the patentee can still potentially save a claim by offering its own expert declaration. Just be aware that the other side will likely request a deposition.
- For one term, the Court was not satisfied with either parties' definition, so it construed it as "plain and ordinary meaning" but said that "[t]he parties may readdress this issue, if it is important, in case dispositive motions."
- While the Court relied on extrinsic dictionary definitions for one term, and used the patentee's expert to find claim language not indefinite, he gave plaintiff's expert declaration "no weight" in construing a term. That's consistent with what usually happens with expert testimony regarding claim construction (rather than indefiniteness).
MHL Custom, Inc. v. Waydoo USA, Inc., C.A. No. 21-91-RGA (D. Del. June 24, 2022).
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
