Six up, six down.
The attached claim construction order contains ten constructions. Unlike the last order posted on, where all four were plain and ordinary meaning, here only four of the ten are, including one rejection of an indefiniteness claim.
Some Markman hearings are just more memorable than others. Mine Friday in Judge Albright’s court involved a missing patent, technology that wouldn’t work, phone screen sizes, and a search for magic words that rivalled Jonathan’s frantic search from the Egyptian Book of the Dead in The Mummy (the good one). So Hootash im Ahmenophus everybody, and let me explain what I mean.
Practitioners in the Eastern District of Texas are familiar with the practice of some judges to provide preliminary claim constructions shortly before a hearing, or in some cases shortly after. The latter procedure was one followed by Judge Albright in this case – sort of.
I challenge you to find a happier 16 year old than this one, who spent the first day of his summer vacation getting some stick time in a World War II trainer, as reported by the local paper. He was, in fact, smiling as broadly as I expect the defendants were when they got Judge Kernodle’s 122 page claim construction order in this 11 patent case raising over 30 terms, which addressed their indefiniteness arguments. They did pretty well.
As I posted several months ago, and more recently in connection with a recent decision, last year’s EDTX rule changes included a new requirement regarding expert disclosure at the P.R. 4-3 stage. We now have a second opinion interpreting the new provision in light of a dispute that has arisen over it.
Judge Albright issued the attached order adopting the special master’s report & recommendation on claim constructions, with one exception.
Last December General Order 18-10 made a number of changes to the EDTX local rules. A significant one was amendment of the patent local rules dealing with expert disclosures in connection with claim construction. A recent opinion applies that change and provides some new guidance on what the requirements mean.
This is a Markman ruling that concluded that a claim term was indefinite. The Court set forth the current standards for such an argument before concluding that the term had been shown by clear and convincing evidence to be indefinite in light of the court’s other constructions. The opinion also addresses several times the argument that a claim term should be given its plain meaning, and provides a good set of examples for when this argument will be accepted.