Thanks to Brokentrade at RB who copied IDC's 27-page Markman hearing brief from the PACER system. It looks like a fight down to the last comma.
II. OVERVIEW OF THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DISPUTE
Exhibit 8 is a chart that compares both parties proposed claim constructions to the actual claim language. Relying on the actual wording of the claim language, InterDigital proposes that the claims at issue have their ordinary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. InterDigital s proposed construction follows the actual claim language, is supported by the relevant intrinsic evidence, and is confirmed by the relevant extrinsic evidence.
By contrast, Ericsson appears to focus on what the claims do not cover, rather than what they mean. Ericsson s proposed construction ignores and deviates from the plain wording of the claims; adds terms and limitations that simply do not exist in the claim language or the specifications; attempts to read comprising claims as consisting essentially of claims; imports excessive structure from the specifications into the claims; and misinterprets the prosecution history and the holdings in the prior Motorola litigation between InterDigital and Motorola, Inc. ( Motorola ). 10/
The parties have exchanged claim construciton charts with proposed interpretations of virtually every word, term, and phrase in the Asserted Patents. Regrettably, the parties have not been able to agree on the meaning of any appreciable number of claim terms. Markman does not require the Court to provide an interpretation of every word, term, and phrase in a claim. See United States Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F. 3d 1554, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Accordingly, this Brief focuses on those claim terms or phrases that now appear to be in genuine dispute.
ragingbull.com
Markman primer:
Patent Construction Is Within The Exclusive Province Of The Court Under The Seventh Amendment
richmond.edu |
