Federal Judiciary

The Other Shoe Drops: The Rest of the Plaintiff's Claims are Invalid as Indefinite Too

By Michael Smith

PureChoice, Inc. v. Honeywell Intern., Inc., 2008 WL 695047(E.D.Tex. Mar 13, 2008) (NO. CIV.A. 2:06-CV-244)
Judge: T. John Ward
Holding:
Two months ago Judge Ward in his January 22, 2008 Markman order found that two claim limitations in United States Reissued Patent No. RE38,985 (?the '985 patent?) indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 - see Judgment for Patent defendant following claims construction ruling; Claims Indefinite. The court informed the parties that it would treat defendant's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment as a motion for summary judgment of indefiniteness as to the remaining asserted claims in this case. 
Judge Ward today held that each of the remaining asserted claims of the '985 patent contain the claim limitations he previously held as indefinite in its Markman Order.

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on March 19, 2008 (boomark / email).