Judge Richard G. Andrews recently issued an opinion construing disputed terms of U.S. Patent No. 6,128,617, entitled “Data display software with actions and link integrated with information.” Select Retrieval LLC v. Amerimark Direct LLC, et al., C.A. No. 11-812-RGA (D. Del. Oct. 17, 2013). Judge Andrews construed:
“integrated active information documents,” id. at 3-4;
“plural successive integrated active information documents,” id. at 4;
“action control elements,” id. at 5-6;
“action control element selection,” id. at 6;
“plural nodes at plural levels,” id. at 7-9.
Judge Andrews concluded that the term “rendering” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, thus no construction was necessary. Id. at 7. Finally, Judge Andrews did not construe the disputed terms “a database record having plural fields,” “database,” and “database query,” explaining that “[t]he construction of these terms, if needed, will be decided at a later date.” Id.
On March 14, 2014 Judge Andrews issued a continuation of the Court’s October 17 Markman opinion and ordered the parties to submit a proposed order “suitable for submission to the jury.” Select Retrieval LLC v. Amerimark Direct LLC, et al., C.A. No. 11-812-RGA (D. Del. Mar. 14, 2014). The Court construed:
The Court did not construed the phrase “a database record having plural fields,” proposed by defendants because the Court found that the phrase found in the preamble did not limit the claim. Id. at 4.
The Court also did not construe “whereby the information in subsequent ones of the successive integrated active information documents corresponds to control element selections made from preceding ones of the integrated active information documents.” Judge Andrews rejected defendants’ argument that construction was necessary because the patentee disavowed claim scope during prosecution. Id. at 7.