Federal Judiciary

Federal Circuit Affirms Judge Love's "Meaningfully Precise" Claims Construction

By Michael C. Smith

One of the latest neat tools I've run across that is making it even more likely that I'll never catch up on my reading is a new RSS feed from PATRacer which provides links to new opinions from the Federal Circuit shortly after they come out.  Three of the first seven I've seen are of Eastern District cases I'm interested in, so that's just more to go in the "to be read" pile, which currently dates back to 2004 (at home the filings go back to 1988, so I'm actually fairly current by my standards).

Today I read the Court's opinion in Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn, 2008-1501, -1507, which represents Judge Love's first trial which has gone up to the Federal Circuit.  That court affirmed Judge Love's claims construction (the exact quote is that "the district court construed the claim term ?POL regulator? in a meaningfully precise manner" which is a well-deserved compliment to Judge Love) and his denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law claiming that the patent was invalid as obvious following trial.  (The damages were stipulated to be the whopping sum of $100 (one hundred dollars)). 

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on April 01, 2010 (boomark / email).