In an August 27, 2013 ruling, Judge Alison J. Nathan denied defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc.'s motion for reconsideration of the Court's earlier claim construction ruling. Judge Nathan noted that "Defendant has failed to meet the motion for reconsideration standard," but the Court nevertheless considered T-Mobile's arguments and found them meritless. One of T-Mobile's contentions, presented in the motion for reconsideration for the first time was that the preamble of the claim at issue "should be read to limit claim scope because the claim does not make sense without any preamble." The Court rejected this argument, writing that "most claims would not make sense without any preamble, yet the Federal Circuit has instructed that 'generally' preambles do not limit claim scope." Judge Nathan also concluded "that the claim is understandable without considering the preamble as a limitation, and that the claim body independently and fully describes a coherent device without any limitation imposed by the preamble." The Court considered and rejected T-Mobile's remaining three arguments, and denied reconsideration.
for the Southern District of New York
Court Denies Defendant's Motion for Reconsideation of Claim Construction Ruling
In an August 27, 2013 ruling, Judge Alison J. Nathan denied defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc.'s motion for reconsideration of the Court's earlier claim construction ruling. Judge Nathan noted that "Defendant has failed to meet the motion for reconsideration standard," but the Court nevertheless considered T-Mobile's arguments and found them meritless. One of T-Mobile's contentions, presented in the motion for reconsideration for the first time was that the preamble of the claim at issue "should be read to limit claim scope because the claim does not make sense without any preamble." The Court rejected this argument, writing that "most claims would not make sense without any preamble, yet the Federal Circuit has instructed that 'generally' preambles do not limit claim scope." Judge Nathan also concluded "that the claim is understandable without considering the preamble as a limitation, and that the claim body independently and fully describes a coherent device without any limitation imposed by the preamble." The Court considered and rejected T-Mobile's remaining three arguments, and denied reconsideration.
Labels:
12 Civ. 2224
,
Claim Construction
,
Judge Nathan
,
Patent Infringement
,
Preamble
Posted by
Richard Crisona
Posted by
Richard Crisona
Labels
05 Civ. 390
(
1
)
09 Civ. 10112
(
1
)
09 Civ. 528
(
1
)
10 Civ. 3734
(
1
)
10 Civ. 7246
(
1
)
11 Civ. 1001
(
1
)
11 Civ. 1594
(
1
)
11 Civ. 4985
(
1
)
11 Civ. 6808
(
1
)
12 Civ 5071
(
1
)
12 Civ. 3699
(
1
)
12 Civ. 3810
(
1
)
12 Civ. 4919
(
1
)
12 Civ. 5070
(
1
)
12 Civ. 5230
(
1
)
12 Civ. 6283
(
2
)
12 Civ. 779
(
1
)
12 Civ. 7902
(
1
)
12 Civ. 9260
(
1
)
12 Civ. 95
(
1
)
13 Civ. 1787
(
1
)
13 Civ. 684
(
1
)
ACPA
(
1
)
Advice of Counsel
(
1
)
Affirmative Defense
(
3
)
ANDA
(
2
)
Anonymity
(
2
)
Attorneys' Fees
(
18
)
Bifurcation
(
1
)
Breach of Contract
(
2
)
Case or Controversy
(
2
)
Contempt
(
2
)
Copyright
(
9
)
Copyright Infringement
(
76
)
Counterfeiting
(
4
)
Damages
(
7
)
Declaratory Judgment
(
7
)
Default Judgment
(
2
)
Federal Circuit
(
2
)
First Sale Doctrine
(
1
)
Fraud
(
1
)
Fraudulent Concealment
(
1
)
Infringement Contentions
(
3
)
Interlocutory Appeal
(
4
)
Judge Abrams
(
5
)
Judge Buchwald
(
3
)
Judge Castel
(
8
)
Judge Cedarbaum
(
1
)
Judge Daniels
(
4
)
Judge Dolinger
(
2
)
Judge Forrest
(
16
)
Judge Gardephe
(
5
)
Judge Hellerstein
(
4
)
Judge Oetken
(
5
)
Judge Preska
(
4
)
Judge Ramos
(
1
)
Judge Schofield
(
5
)
Judge Sullivan
(
12
)
Moot
(
4
)
Motion to Quash
(
2
)
Patent
(
1
)
Patent Infringement
(
56
)
Preliminary Injunction
(
4
)
Reasonable Royalty
(
2
)
Renewal
(
1
)
Safe Harbor
(
1
)
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
(
5
)
Summary Judgment
(
8
)
Trademark
(
2
)
Trademark Infringement
(
42
)
Willfulness
(
6
)
The general information and thoughts posted to this blog are provided only as an informational service to the web community and do not constitute solicitation or provision of legal advice. Nothing on this blog is intended to create an attorney-client relationship and nothing posted constitutes legal advice. You should understand that the posts by the author, who is an attorney at U.S. law firm Allegaert, Berger & Vogel, may or may not reflect the views of that firm and that the author of this blog is only authorized to practice law in the jurisdictions in which he is properly licensed to do so. For additional information, click here.