Constant Compliance, Inc. v. Emerson Process Mgt. Power & Water Sol’ns., Inc., No. 08 C 3724, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 2009) (Ashman, Mag. J.).
Judge Mason granted in part plaintiff’s motion to bar defendant from opposing plaintiff’s claim constructions because of defendant’s failure to meet the Court’s deadline for the parties to exchange proposed claim constructions. In response to an interrogatory, defendant identified claim terms that it believed required construction. But defendant did not submit any proposed constructions until two weeks after receiving plaintiff’s constructions on the date of the Court’s deadline for joint exchange of constructions. The Court held that defendant was barred from offering constructions for those terms it identified as requiring construction in its interrogatory response, but allowed defendant’s constructions of those terms offered by plaintiff, but not in defendant’s response. Additionally, as to the terms identified in defendant’s interrogatory response, the Court adopted plaintiff’s constructions because no alternative construction had been timely offered.