In a memorandum opinion issued today, Judge Richard G. Andrews construed disputed terms across six patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,126,448; 6,213,780; 6,685,478; 6,398,556; 6,688,888; and RE 38,432. IpLearn, LLC v. Kenexa Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 11-825-RGA; IpLearn, LLC v. Blackboard, Inc., C.A. No. 11-876-RGA; IpLearn, LLC v. K12, Inc., C.A. No. 11-1026-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 22, 2013). Judge Andrews construed the following terms:
“computer-aided/computer implemented,” id. at 3;
“generating materials for learning the subject,” id. at 4-5;
“a report,” id. at 5;
“learning user,” id. at 6-8;
“institute user,” id. at 8-9;
“attribute,” id. at 9;
“materials regarding at least one learning user,” id. at 9-10;
“monitoring,” id. at 10;
“a need,” id. at 10-11;
“update information on the job position due to changes in information on the job position to identify a candidate for the job position/information on the job is updated in view of changes in the job based on an input, and wherein another learning user can be identified in view of changes in the job,” id. at 11-12;
“becoming aware of a learning user’s understanding in an area,” id. at 12;
“wherein the materials accessed can be retrieved,” id. at 12-13;
“considers at least a preference of the learner, other than the fact that the learner might
prefer to learn the subject,” id. at 13-14.
Furthermore, Judge Andrews interpreted that the following terms to have their plain and ordinary meanings: “rules,” “providing guidance to the learner to target the at least one weakness” (based on the Court’s construction of another term), and “wherein the materials accessed can be retrieved.” Id. at 3-4, 6, 12-13.
Delaware IP Law Blog 