WorldLogic Corp. v. Chicago Logic, Inc., No. 16 C 11713, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 5, 2017) (Feinerman, J.).

Judge Feinerman construed a key claim term from each patent in suit as part of a mini-Markman proceeding in this patent dispute regarding predictive text technology.

Of particular note, the Court held as follows:

• The Court construed “based on the selected completion candidate” as “using the selected completion candidate as the basis for further searching.” This was the parties’ agreed construction and, while the Court was not required to follow it, the Court did so in this instance because the construction followed the “widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.”
• The Court construed “providing representations of further keyboard events to the second process, but not to the first process, for processing” as “user keyboard input signals are received and processed by the second process (such as, for example, the virtual keyboard application) but not the first process (such as, for example, the word processing or other application receiving the text input).” As a matter of the English language, representations can be given in a non-visual manner. For example, lawyers verbally represent things to the Court regularly. The Court, therefore, declined to limit the construction to visual representations.