Judge Andrews recently overruled objections to a report and recommendation on claim construction issued by Chief Magistrate Judge Thynge, previously discussed here. Hand Held Prods., Inc. v. Amazon.com, et al., C.A. No. 12-768-RGA-MPT (D. Del. Nov. 5, 2014). Judge Andrews noted with respect to one objection that the Supreme Court’s decision (issued between claim construction briefing and Judge Andrews’ consideration of Judge Thynge’s recommendations) in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) changed the legal standard for showing indefiniteness. The defendant argued that Judge Thynge erroneously applied the former “insolubly ambiguous” standard, but Judge Andrews disagreed and found that Judge Thynge correctly applied the standard enunciated in Nautilus. Id. at 8. Judge Andrews also rejected the defendant’s argument that Nautilus “eliminated the requirement that the party challenging the validity of a patent must prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.” Id. The Court explained that it “does not interpret the new standard to have any effect on the presumption of validity or to eliminate or change the evidentiary burden of proof. In fact, the Supreme Court expressly discussed the presumption and burden of proof and made no mention of changing or eliminating either.” Id. at 8-9 (citing Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2030 n.10).