Published on:

Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge: Markman Opinion

By

In the case of Parker-Hannifin Corporation v. Zippertubing (Japan), Ltd., Magistrate Thynge construed the following claim terms found in five patents related to flame-retardant, electrically conductive materials:

(1) “which is not V-0 rated”
(2) “exterior surface”
(3) “thickness dimension”
(4) “coating at least a portion of the interior surface”
(5) “being/is effective to afford said gasket a flame class rating of V-0”
(6) “penetrating…such that the exterior surface remains electrically conductive”
(7) “between about 30-50% by weight”
(8) “at least about 30% by weight”
(9) “at least about 50% by dry weight”
Despite defendant’s arguments that the claim terms describing the weights should be held indefinite, effectively arguing that summary judgment on indefininteness was appropriate at this stage of the litigation, the Court adopted the proposed construction proffered by the plaintiff, but implied that the defendant may be able to raise their indefiniteness argument again during the summary judgment phase of the case. Id.

Parker-Hannifin Corp. v. Zippertubing (Japan), Ltd., C.A. No. 06-751-MPT, Memo. Order (D. Del. Nov. 18, 2008).

Contact Information