iFLY Holdings LLC vs. Indoor Skydiving Germany GmbH, No. 2:14-cv-01080 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2016)

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.

ON SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Pending before the Court are Defendant Indoor Skydiving Germany GmbH’s (“ISG”) Motion for Clarifying Claim Construction Prior to Trial (Dkt. No. 20 6) and Motion in Limine No. 1 (Dkt. No. 177). The Court, before these motions were filed, construed the limitation “a fan whereby an airflow is induced” as “a fan located above the chamber that induces an airflow .” (Dkt. No. 111 at 29.) ISG now argues “above” means “higher-than” and “downstream” from the chamber. (Dkt. No.