Tag: Claim Construction

“Partially Horizontally Aligned” Button Claim Limitation Deemed Indefinite in Claim Construction Order Involving Hand-Held Game Controllers

Junk Food Custom Arcades, LLC v. Hit Box LLC, Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-00262-RWS (N.D. Ga., Apr. 11, 2023) Judge Richard Story recently entered claim construction for two patents directed at gaming controllers, siding with the Defendant’s position for four of the five disputed terms. The dispute involves Hit […]

Markman Ruling Construes “Network” Rejecting Parties’ Proposals

Plaintiff Microwave Vision, SA (“Microwave Vision”), owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,443,170 (the “‘170 Patent”), brought an action for patent infringement along with MVG Industries, SAS, and MVG, Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) against ESCO Technologies Inc. and ETS-Lindgren Inc. (collectively the “Defendants”). The ‘170 Patent covers systems used “to […]

Intellectual Property in the Gutter: Claims Construed in Sewer Line Resin Lining Patent Dispute

Sumner C. Rosenberg issued a Special Master’s Report and Recommendation construing terms at issue in three patents — U.S. Patent Nos. 5,927,341 (“the ‘341 patent”), 6,337,114 (“the ‘114 patent”), and 6,899,832 (“the ‘832 patent”) — asserted by Insituform Technologies, Inc., and INA Acquisition Corp. (collectively “ITI”) against AMerik Supplies, Inc., and Erik Nielsen who […]

Leveling the Culinary Field: Typographical Corrections in Markman Ruling Allow Food Service Equipment Leveling Device Patent to be Construed

Judge Batten examined the parties’ contentions in light of controlling federal law and construed patent claims as plaintiff Kason Industries, Inc. (“Kason”) contended, rejecting reliance by defendant Component Hardware Group, Inc. (“Component”) on indefiniteness and rejecting its efforts to restrict the term “projection” to mean only a “rib.” […]

Disclosure Requirements to Conduct a “Meaningful Deposition” of an Expert under Northern District of Georgia Local Patent Rule 6.3(b)(4)

Motions to strike testimony of Defendant’s Expert and Plaintiff’s rebuttal expert were denied by Judge Jones in this patent dispute over a interface technologies.  Two paragraphs comprising 373 words described the intention of Defendants’ expert to provide testimony “about the history, evolution, development, and technical operation of … […]