Patent Case Watch

Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

E.D. Tex.

PureChoice, Inc., v. Honeywell International, Inc.,, No. 2:06-cv-00244 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2008)

Granted in Part
Summary Judgment Indefiniteness Claim Construction
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:06-cv-00244, Dkt. No. 99
Decided
March 13, 2008
Judge
T. John Ward, J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER - The court, by applying the same reasoning as contained in the Markman Order, finds that claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-13, 15-34, 34-36, 48-59,61-64, 66-72 and 74-75 of the 985 patent are invalid as indefinite under 35 U…
Length
1 page

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

In its January 22, 2008 Memorandum Opinion and Order (Dkt. No. 91) (“Markman Order”), the court found two claim limitations i n United States Reissued Patent No. RE38,985 (“the ‘985 patent”) indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The court concluded that asserted independent claims 1, 16, 21 and 62 of the ‘985 pate nt are invalid. The cour t informed the parties that it would treat defendant’s Motion for Entry of Final Judgment as a motion for summary judgment of indefiniteness as to the remaining asserted claims in this case.

Download Opinion (PDF)

Source: govinfo.gov USCOURTS collection · retrieved July 23, 2026 · Report an error

Other documents in this case