Almost Always Not Indefinite

I have to admit, I review claim construction orders not so much for the soap opera of what is and isn’t given plain and ordinary meaning, but for when judges believe that a term is or isn’t indefinite. The defendant asserted that 18 of the 19 terms were indefinite (“processes” it contended was plain & ordinary, and the parties reached agreement on seven other terms). Defendant offered no constructions for any disputed terms. Judge Gilliland reviewed indefiniteness claims over and over in this order, but found the standard met only once.

Omnibus Order on Dispositive and Daubert Motions

I guess you had to be there. I mean, literally. But here’s the box score on Judge Albright’s pretrial rulings in this case about to go to trial. Most motions to dismiss/SJ/Daubert denied (granted noninfringement of one patent), but some not, so some defenses remain for trial, and expert testimony is appropriately trimmed. A request for additional claim construction was granted in part.

WSOU JMOL #2: The Perils of Claim Construction at Trial

Several weeks ago I posted on Judge Albright’s grant of JMOL against plaintiff WSOU during a trial in October (he did the same thing against the same plaintiff in a trial in February). The written opinion on WSOU JMOL #2 came out yesterday and explains the Court’s rationale, which was based on a claim construction issue that arose during trial.

Invalid Due To Lack Of Antecedent Basis

Judge Payne found a claim term indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis in the claim.  “While definiteness does not require absolute certainty, it does require reasonable certainty around the boundaries of the term. The Court finds that one of skill in the art would not be able to reasonably determine what is meant by the phrase “the definition of the plan.””