Federal Judiciary

Motion to Clarify Claim Construction Opinion Granted

By Michael Smith

MASS Engineered Design, Inc. v. Ergotron, Inc., 2008 WL 2697293(E.D.Tex. May 30, 2008) (NO. 206 CV 272)
Judge: Leonard Davis
Holding: Motion to Clarify Claim Construction Opinion GRANTED
Plaintiff asked the Court to clarify one of its claims constructions to clarify whether something was a necessary structure.  "The Court's exclusion of ?rear of the display 16? for Figure 8/9 was unintentional," Judge Davis wrote, later observing that "[i]n fact, the Court's Opinion included this portion of the specification in its analysis but inadvertently excluded it from Appendix B. Accordingly, ?rear of the display 16? is necessary structure and an amended Appendix B is included to reflect such clarification." 
The interesting part of this brief clarification was in the footnote, where Judge Davis noted that "[i]n their response, Defendants attempt to raise a new claim construction issue regarding the structure for connecting the mounting means to the arm assembly. At the Markman hearing, Plaintiffs and Defendants agreed that these components were not necessary structure; the Defendants did not take a contrary position in its supplemental briefing, which addressed the ?mounting means.? See Docket No. 160. Defendants attempt to raise this new issue in response to MASS's motion is improper. See Local Rule CV-7(d). The proper vehicle would be a motion for reconsideration in which the Defendants would need to explain to the Court why the Court should disregard Defendants' agreement that excluded the newly proposed structure."

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on July 14, 2008 (boomark / email).