Dynocom Industries, Inc. v. Mainline Automotive Equipment Pty. Ltd. t/a Mainline DynoLog..., No. 2:16-cv-00553 (E.D. Tex. July 17, 2017)

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 CLAIM CONSTRUCTION On June 8, 2017, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of the dis- puted claim terms in United States Patent No. 8,505,374 (“the ’374 Patent”). The Court has con- sidered the arguments made by the parties at the hearing and in their claim construction briefs. Dkt. Nos. 52, 54, & 57.1 The Court has also considered the intrinsic evidence and made subsidiary factual findings about th e extrinsic evidence. See Phillips v. AWH Corp. , 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.