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

E.D. Tex.

Pact XPP Technologies, AG v. Xilinx, Inc., et al, No. 2:07-cv-00563 (E.D. Tex. June 17, 2011)

Claims Construed
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:07-cv-00563, Dkt. No. 201
Decided
June 17, 2011
Judge
Charles Everingham IV, M.J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION regarding Claim Construction. The Court adopts the constructions set forth in this opinion for the disputed terms and disputed phrases of the patents-in-suit
Length
71 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 Plaintiff PACT XPP Technologies AG‘s (―Plaintiff ‖) filed suit on April 11, 2008, alleging that Defendants Xilinx, Inc. and Avnet, Inc. (collectively ―Defendants‖) infringe Plaintiff‘s U.S. Patent No . 5,943,242 (―the ‗242 Patent‖), U.S. Patent No . 6,859,869 (―the ‗869 Patent‖), U.S. Patent No . 6,728,871 (―the ‗871 Patent‖), U.S. Patent No . 7,237,087 (―the ‗087 Patent‖), U.S. Patent No . 6,119,181 (―the ‗181 Patent‖), U.S. Patent No. 6,513,077 (―the ‗077 Patent‖), U.S. Patent No . 6,338,106 (―the ‗106 Patent‖), U.S. Patent No.