Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Daignault Iyer x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Patent | Massachusetts
Order
Judge Indira Talwani: Claim Construction Order For the reason stated above, the court construes the disputed terms in the '116 Patent as follows: 1. The term "infrared light source" means "a source of light that emits light with a wavelength between approximately 750 nm and 1 mm." 2. The term "substantially different wavelength" is indefinite. 3. The term "substantially different waveguide structure" is indefinite. 4. The term "first optical signal" does not require construction. 5. The term "shift" means "to change the wavelength of the light." IT IS SO ORDERED.(MAP)
For the reason stated above, the court construes the disputed terms in the '116 Patent as follows:
1. The term "infrared light source" means "a source of light that emits light with a wavelength between approximately 750 nm and 1 mm."
2. The term "substantially different wavelength" is indefinite.
3. The term "substantially different waveguide structure" is indefinite.
4. The term "first optical signal" does not require construction.
5. The term "shift" means "to change the wavelength of the light."
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Judge Indira Talwani: ELECTRONIC ORDER: in their Joint Claim Construction Statement [ 83 ], as to U.S. Patent No. 7,519,253 ("the 253 Patent"), the parties have agreed on the construction of three terms, id. at 1-2, and have sought construction of the term "a first fiber coupled to the one or more optical amplifiers[,]" id. at 1-3. Plaintiff contended that no construction of this term was needed, while Defendants asked the court to construe the term to mean "a first fiber coupled to the one or more optical amplifiers to receive the amplified pump signal." Id. During the claim construction hearing, Defendants' counsel clarified that while the parties were mostly in agreement regarding the meaning of the term, Defendants "want[ed] to make clear that [] the amplified pump signal [] is received by the first fiber." Hrg Tr. 63:25, 64:14 [ 95 ]. Counsel for Plaintiff subsequently confirmed that there was no dispute over that. Id. at 64:7. Accordingly, where there is no dispute between the parties, the court finds that no construction of the '253 Patent is needed. (MAP)
During the claim construction hearing, Defendants' counsel clarified that while the parties were mostly in agreement regarding the meaning of the term, Defendants "want[ed] to make clear that [] the amplified pump signal [] is received by the first fiber." Hrg Tr. 63:25, 64:14 [ 95 ]. Counsel for Plaintiff subsequently confirmed that there was no dispute over that. Id. at 64:7. Accordingly, where there is no dispute between the parties, the court finds that no construction of the '253 Patent is needed.
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.