Based on the parties' agreement that “cylindraceous housing” should be construed as “a housing that is generally cylindrical in shape,” the district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. See MHL Tek, LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., 691 F.Supp.2d 698, 703 (E.D.Tex.2010) (“ Summ. J. Op.”); MHL TEK, LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., Case No. 07–CV–289, 2009 WL 2824731, *5 (Aug. 28, 2009) (“ Claim Construction Op.”). The district court rejected MHL Tek's argument that having a generally cylindrical valve system attached perpendicularly to a generally cylindrical electronics enclosure constitutes a “cylindraceous housing.”

Neither argument is convincing. First, the plaintiffs argue that three cases-Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., No. 09-cv-01714, 2011 WL 4634066 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2011), rev'd on other grounds, 724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013), MHL TEK, LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., No. 07-cv-00289, 2009 WL 2824731 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2009), and Diamond Coating Technologies, LLC v. Hyundai Motor America, No. 13-cv-01480, 2014 WL 5698445 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2014)-compel their reading of “slidably contact.” These cases, however, are distinguishable.

Finally, in similar cases, numerous courts have construed "antenna" without requiring it to be "designed to radiate." See, e.g., MHL TEK, LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., No. 2:07-CV-0289, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77578, *38 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2009) (construing "antenna" as device for radiating or receiving radio waves and rejecting "designed to" limitation); Alien Tech. Corp. v. Intermec, Inc., No. 3:06-CV-0051, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118859, *24 (D.N.D. June 27, 2008) (same); Microsoft Corp. v. Commonwealth Scientific & Indus. Research Org., 572 F.Supp.2d 786, 800 (E.D. Tex., 2008) (same). Accordingly, the Court construes "antenna" to mean "a device used to radiate or receive electromagnetic waves."