Claim construction opinions tend to be highly fact-specific, so even though they can be critically important to the parties in a case, we don't always post about them on this blog.
Judge Andrews issued an interesting claim construction opinion today, however, which addressed indefiniteness due to a potential drafting error in a claim.
The opinion involved claim language for a mechanical device:
. . . wherein the . . . assembly comprises a housing comprising the syringe and the stirring motor . . .
Defendants argued indefiniteness in light of the dual use of "comprising," because a person of skill in the art cannot determine a …
