One of our busiest posts on the blog is What Is "Plain and Ordinary Meaning," Anyway? And Why Do Plaintiffs Want It? This has been a recurring issue for years. Sometimes the Court is OK with a plain meaning construction, but sometimes the it is decidedly not.
Judge Andrews issued an order today for a forthcoming Markman hearing, set for 9:00 am tomorrow, directing plaintiff to propose a construction for one of its "plain meaning" terms by 8:00 pm this evening:
ORAL ORDER: The time for argument at the Markman hearing is reduced to thirty minutes per side. . . . As to disputed term D, the Court thinks construction is necessary and will not give the term plain and ordinary meaning. Plaintiffs are to propose a construction by 8 p.m. today and to advise Defendants of it by that time. Plaintiffs proposal should at minimum address what time frame is covered by the disputed term.
Celanese International Corporation v. Anhui Jinhe Industrial Co., Ltd., C.A. No. 20-1775-RGA (D. Del. July 20, 2022).
I thought this was worth flagging as another potential effect of a "plain meaning" construction.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
