Phenix Longhorn, LLC v. AU Optronics Corporation et al, No. 2:23-cv-00477 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2026)

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.

Before the Court is AUO’s Opposed O2 Micro Motion for Further Claim Construction. Dkt. No. 307. The Motion is fully briefed. See Dkt. Nos. 369, 403, 406. AUO seeks additional claim construction of the term “multiplexer” from Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,233,305 (“’305 Patent”) because Phenix is allegedly now satisfying the “circuits for programming” and “multiplexer” limitation with “I2Cs ,” and AUO contends —and Phenix disputes—that there must be some “structural” boundary between “circuits for programming” and “m…