A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: O2 Micro

A Very Late Markman

Nathan R. Hoeschen, May 20, 2025
Markman O2 Micro

It has been pointed out that many of my references are so oblique as to be indecipherable. Rather than improve the practice, I have resolved to simply include a footnote at the bottom of each post, lest they go unappreciated.

The best and worst artists please themselves first.

AI-Generated, displayed with permission

Anyway, today's case is Cosmokey Solutions GmbH v. Duo Security, Inc., C.A. No. 18-1477-JLH-CJB (D. Del. May 19, 2025).

The defendant there brought a Daubert motion to preclude the plaintiffs' experts testimony on the grounds that he offered a "legally wrong construction" of one of the claim terms. Naturally, this motion was brought long after the Court issued its Markman order. Neither party had proposed …

View

Be Careful What You Wish For

Andrew E. Russell, April 30, 2025
O2 Micro Claim Construction

Just doing some claim construction
AI-Generated, displayed with permission

This post falls in a category we could broadly refer to as "ouch, that hurts." Maybe we can all learn from times when things go wrong.

In Alnylam Pharma., Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., C.A. No. 22-336-CFC (D. Del.), the plaintiff asked—as plaintiffs often do—for a "plain and ordinary meaning" construction of a key term in all asserted claims, "cationic lipid," and spelled out that plain meaning in general terms. Id., D.I. 63. The defendants proposed a much longer and more specific construction. Id.

At claim construction, the Court mostly adopted plaintiff's proposed construction, holding that a "cationic lipid" is a lipid that, under its plain and ordinary meaning, is …

View

Can a Party Waive Its Claim Construction Positions? Yes.

Andrew E. Russell, Sept. 8, 2024
O2 Micro Waiver

Analog Clock
None, Ocean Ng, Unsplash

The Court often limits parties to a total of 10 terms for construction. But sometimes it seems like, under O2 Micro, a party can't really waive a claim construction position. After all, if there is a dispute, the Court will have to construe the term one way or another, right? It can't go to the jury like that?

We got a clear answer to that question on Friday when Judge Williams held that both parties had waived their right to offer certain constructions, which they offered just three days before trial.

The parties asked to construe a total of five terms. The Court held that it was within its discretion to …

View

Judge Fallon Declines to Construe Term That Is Not "Structural"

Andrew E. Russell, Jan. 8, 2024
O2 Micro Plain Meaning

We've talked a lot about "plain meaning" constructions, and how our judges have sometimes pushed back against parties who offer plain meaning constructions without any indication of what the actual meaning of the term is.

Magistrate Judge Fallon issued an R&R today on an offshoot of this issue. In PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Charles Industries, LLC, C.A. No. 22-1517-GBW-SRF (D. Del. Jan. 8, 2024), the parties disputed the construction of only a single term, "drop cable." Plaintiff proposed not construing the term at all, and offered a generic definition as an alternative. The defendant proposed a specific construction that added limitations to the claim.

The patent at issue is directed towards a wall-mounted box that …

View

O2 Micro? More Like No2 Micro

Nathan R. Hoeschen, June 24, 2021
O2 Micro Claim Construction

We at IPDE have chronicled the Court's efforts to limit the number of terms it construes pretty extensively. Just last month, we discussed Judge Noreika's opinion in Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., C.A. No. 19-1868-MN (D. Del. May 17, 2021) where she shot down the plaintiff's motion to reconsider one of her claim construction rulings, citing O2 Micro.

This week, there are some further claim construction developments worth talking about—but we'll start first with some interesting history that we overlooked last time around.

A Difficult Claim Construction Journey

Although we didn't discuss it in our previous post, this case had already had a tempestuous claim construction process. The parties had initially submitted 8 disputed …

View

Judge Noreika Points Out Nuance in O2 Micro, Declines to Construe Term

Andrew E. Russell, May 17, 2021
O2 Micro Plain Meaning

The Federal Circuit's 2008 decision in O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) comes up frequently in patent cases. Its holding is sometimes shorthanded as "you can't argue claim construction to the jury" or "the Court must construe claim limitations if they are disputed."

Judge Noreika rejected one such shorthanding of the O2 Micro rule today, pointing out that the actual O2 Micro ruling is more nuanced than parties sometimes think:

Defendant asserts that “when parties dispute a term appearing in the body of the claims, it must be construed.” (D.I. 90 at 2 (citing O2 Micro . . . )). That statement of law is incorrect. Rather, the Federal …
View

Archive