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.