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

E.D. Tex.

Anthurium Solutions, Inc. v. MedQuist, Inc. et al, No. 2:07-cv-00484 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2009)

Claims Construed
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:07-cv-00484, Dkt. No. 103
Decided
February 9, 2009
Judge
Charles Everingham IV, M.J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION AND ORDER - the court adopts the definition set forth herein for those terms in need of construction
Length
25 pages

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.

I. Introduction Anthurium Solutions, Inc. (“Anthurium”) f iled its complaint against MedQuist, Inc. (“MedQuist”), Arrendale Associat es, Inc. (“AAI”), and Spheris, Inc. (“Spheris”) (collectively, “defendants”) on November 6, 2007, alleging patent infringement. Anthurium accuses the defendants of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,031,998 (“the ‘998 patent), which was filed on May 29, 2003, as U.S. Patent Application No. 10/389,116. The ‘998 patent is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 09/694,884, filed on October 24, 2000, now U.S. Patent Application No.