Shurflo LLC v. ITT Corporation et al, No. 6:08-cv-00059 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 19, 2010)

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.

This Memorandum Opinion construes the terms in the Patents-in-Suit: U.S. Pat. No. 6,048,183 (the “’183 Patent”); U.S. Pat. No. 5,791,882 (the “’882 Patent”); U.S. Pat. No. 6,050,662 (the “’662 Patent”); U.S. Pat. No. 6,305,767 (the “’767 Patent”); U.S. Pat. No. 7,225,936 (the “’936 Patent”); and U.S. Pat. No. 5,833,437 (the “’437 Patent”). Furthermore, after considering the briefing and oral argument, and for the reasons explained below, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness of the ’882 Patent and the ’936 Patent (Docket No.