Court Requires Clear Explanation From Counsel for Further Construction

Rowe Int'l. Corp. v. ECast, No. 06 C 2703, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 28, 2008) (Kennelly, J.).

Judge Kennelly construed the terms of plaintiff's computer jukebox patents -- click here for more on this case in the Blog's archives, including more on claim construction.  Of particular interest, the Court held that "programmable computer memory" and "programmable memory" both mean a computer memory that can be programmed, requiring little construction.  The Court rejected defendant's construction that would have limited the term to random access memory. 

The parties both sought further construction of "user attract", but the Court had previously construed the term and saw no basis to revisit the construction without a clear and succinct explanation from counsel as to why it was required.

Direction and Control of Suppliers Sufficient for Direct Infringement

Rowe Int’l. Corp. v. Ecast, Inc., No. 06 C 2708, 2008 WL 4133516 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2008) (Kennelly, J.)

Judge Kennelly granted in part plaintiff’s patent infringement summary judgment motion and denied defendants’ noninfringement summary judgment motion.* Of particular interest, the Court held that defendant Ecast could directly infringe the patents in suit, despite the fact that it did not make or assemble all components of the system – Ecast contributed the memory and the network, while the other defendants supplied the jukebox components. But the Court held that Ecast could directly infringe the patent for at least two reasons. First, Ecast produced promotional and technical materials advertising complete jukebox systems. Second, the evidence showed that Ecast directed and controlled the other defendants’ production of computer jukeboxes specifically designed to work with Ecast’s system.

* For more on this computer jukebox infringement case in the Blog’s archive click here.