The good news is that the claim isn’t invalid as indefinite. You want the bad news too?
Sometimes Monty Python provides the appropriate frame of reference for a provision in a Markman ruling.
“Plain and ordinary meaning” is not always as clear as, say, “fair share of the housework.” This order shows how that term is sometimes caveated by courts in practice.
An evergreen question is whether a judge denies requests for page extensions, even if they are agreed. The answer for Waco (and much of the Austin patent docket) is in this order.
In much the same way that previous models of ships of the same class can inform later models, a court may consider previous constructions of disputed terms. But under what standards?
Kinda sounds like a super hero, doesn’t it? I’m spectating on Judge Albright’s first one this morning, and have a couple of pointers for attorneys. Maybe more than a couple.
Let’s celebrate the flowers from my tulip poplar with this example of the kind of wave off that judges like.
Judge Albright’s second order today deals with parties with Markman hearings the rest of this month and provides options, including sneak peeks of his constructions. That’s something contestants on Let’s Make a Deal never got.
I give up – I’ll just start calling them this to keep my dictation software happy. I don’t post on Markman rulings unless they include dispositive rulings or notable discussion, but both were present here.
Judge Albright has made available examples of claim construction tutorials that he has found helpful. No indication there’s a corresponding disclosure of the ones that didn’t do so well.