Sounds like someone’s frustrated, doesn’t it?
This order builds on a construction of the same patent in a prior case.
This last of the three posts on Judge Albright’s new procedures covers the changes in OGP 3.1, which deal primarily with claim construction.
Several new developments today, including what to do about leftovers.
Breaking news: “unrestricted” and “parallel” don’t require construction.
This order is notable because it was hotly disputed whether the court should enter it. (Also, it’s in 14 point for some reason).
Always worth asking, even if the answer might not be what you wanted …
This order memorializes both the court’s constructions and the parties’ agreed constructions in this case.
No. A second Markman? Maybe. Wait – why are you crying? There’s no crying in claim construction.
The good news is that the claim isn’t invalid as indefinite. You want the bad news too?