Smartflash trial#

In the specification, a patentee may define his own terms, give a claim term a different meaning than it would otherwise possess, or disclaim or disavow some claim scope. Usually, it is dispositive it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.вЂ™вЂќ Id. вЂњhe specification вЂis always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. вЂњlaims вЂmust be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.вЂ™вЂќ Id. Differences among claims, such as additional limitations in dependent claims, can provide further guidance. Other 2 claims, asserted and unasserted, can provide additional instruction because вЂњterms are normally used consistently throughout the patent.вЂќ Id. вЂњhe context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.вЂќ Id. Claim language guides the CourtвЂ™s construction of claim terms. The Court gives claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Intrinsic evidence includes the claims, the rest of the specification, and the prosecution history.

The Court examines a patentвЂ™s intrinsic evidence to define the patented inventionвЂ™s scope. APPLICABLE LAW вЂњIt is a вЂbedrock principleвЂ™ of patent law that вЂthe claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.вЂќ Phillips v. All patents are titled вЂњData Storage and Access Systems.вЂќ The patents-in-suit all stem from a common specification and share a common written description and figures. Smartflash alleges Defendants infringe the following patents: U.S. (collectively вЂњDefendantsвЂќ) submitted additional briefing. Smartflash and Defendants Apple, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., Exedea, Inc. 1 heard argument on SmartflashвЂ™s Motion and ordered the parties to submit supplemental claim construction briefing. At that hearing, the Court also 1 The Court GRANTED that motion in the alternative by ordering supplemental claim construction briefing as noted below. 1 The Court heard argument on dispositive and Daubert Motions on December 2, 2014. BACKGROUND On November 14, 2014, Smartflash filed a Motion to Enforce Compliance with O2 Micro, or in the Alternative, to Resolve Manufactured Claim Construction Disputes that Defendants Intend to Argue to the Jury (6:13CV447, Doc. For the reasons discussed below, the Court resolves the dispute as stated.

Smartflash trial#

6:13cv447-JRG-KNM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED В§ В§ В§ В§ Plaintiffs, v. 432 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION SMARTFLASH LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v.