In a report and recommendation regarding claim construction on patented technology for processing debit card transactions, Magistrate Judge Stark construed the following claim terms:
– “telecommunication means”
– “debit styled card”
– “debit purchase transactions”
– “purchasing value of a card in response to card use”
– “entering a customer authorization code for authorizing access to a customer database of a host data provider”
– “entering an authorization code through the keypad for having the computer initiate communication with a host data processor”
– “requesting a response of approval or disapproval from the host data processor”
– “credit authorization provider”
Stored Value Solutions, Inc. v. Card Activation Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 09-495-JJF-LPS, Report and Recommendation Regarding Claim Construction (D. Del. Apr. 28, 2010).
Issue re: means-plus-function: The parties disputed whether the term “telecommunications means” is in means-plus-function format. The court concluded that there was not sufficient sstructure for performing the described function to overcome the presumption that the term is in means-plus-function format. Id. at 7.Specifically, defendant argued that the distance between the disputed term and the element that describes the function is inconsistent with means-plus-function format, but cited no authority to support their position. Therefore, Judge Stark found that the term was in means-plus-function format. Id. at 7-8.
Delaware IP Law Blog 