Judge Connolly today struck portions of an expert report where the expert opined that the accused product did not infringe because it included extra components in addition to what was claimed in a means-plus-function claim element.
This is contrary to the well-established principle that additional structure does not preclude infringement of an MPF claim element, if the required structure is also there.
Here is an example of the excluded text, as quoted by the Court:
Dr. Vallee points, without much explanation, to various structures on the JoistPro' s safety mechanism as allegedly meeting the required structure of the claimed "push portion[."] However, Dr. Vallee fails to explain how his identified [structures] work together to achieve the function of the claimed …