"Plurality" Construed Consistent With Other Uses of Term as Greater than One

Posted on April 15, 2009 by R. David Donoghue

Callpod, Inc. v. GN Netcom, Inc., No. 06 C 4961, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 6, 2009) (Kendall, J.).
 

Judge Kendall construed the disputed claim terms in plaintiff's patent directed to methods and devices for making conference calls using cordless and mobile phones. The following constructions were of particular interest:

  • “Plurality of participants” meant more than one participant. The parties agreed that plurality meant more than one in relation to headsets, but defendants argued that a plurality of participants was three or more because a conference call generally required more than two participants. The Court, however, noted that having two different definitions of plurality would lead to the odd result of requiring two headsets and three participants.
  • “Callpod” was construed as a portable device that forms conference calls among a plurality of participants. The claims did not provide a clear definition, but the Court noted that the patentee's lexicography governs and construed the term based upon the specification.

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Court Clarifies That "Static" Elements Require Permanent Lack of Movement

Posted on March 12, 2007 by R. David Donoghue

Trading Techs. Int'l., Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No 04 C 5312, 2007 WL 611258 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.).

Judge Moran denied plaintiff Trading Technologies ("TT") motion for clarification of the Court's claim construction or in the alternative for reconsideration (more on the claim construction and the case generally here).  TT sought clarification of the Court's construction of "static" and a correction to the Court's construction of "plurality."  The Court defined "static" relative to a "price axis" as a line that does not change position unless it is manually re-centered.  TT sought clarification as to whether a product that had a "static" "price axis" for periods of time in between automatic re-centering would fall within the definition of "static" at least for part-time infringement.  The Court denied to clarify the construction as TT requested and held that for something to be "static" it must have "a permanent lack of movement."

 

The Court did, however, reconsider its construction of "plurality."  The Court originally construed "plurality" to mean "one or more."  But the Court agreed with TT's argument that the well-established understanding of plurality was that it be "more than one."  So, the Court revised its construction accordingly.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,