Opinion
21-CV-61035-RAR
05-20-2022
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RODOLFO A. RUIZ II, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss's Report and Recommendation on Claim Construction [ECF No. 172] (“Report”), entered on April 29, 2022. Magistrate Judge Strauss held a Markman hearing on February 2, 2022. [ECF No. 101]. Prior to the Markman hearing, the parties submitted opening and reply claim construction briefing. [ECF Nos. 81; 82; 84; 85]. Plaintiffs filed objections to the Report on May 13, 2022 [ECF No. 179] (“Objections”).
Magistrate Judge Strauss recommended that the Court construe the claims as follows:
a) The Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”): Magistrate Judge Strauss recommends that the Court accept both parties' positions on the qualifications of a POSITA.
b) ‘814 Patent i. “Flow channel”: “an internal passageway through which water may flow.”
ii. “Heat-conducting unit”: “a component that connects the stator to the housing and which is able to conduct heat.”
iii. “A material capable of conducting heat”: “a material capable of conducting heat.”
c) ‘019 Patent i. “Holder”: “an object that has a plurality of receptacles.”
ii. “Receptacle”: “a component into which another object is inserted.”
iii. “Holding Arrangement”: “a configuration of two spaced-apart holders.”
When a magistrate judge's “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(B)(3). BECAUSE PLAINTIFF TIMELY FILED OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT, THE COURT HAS CONDUCTED A de novo review of Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss's legal and factual findings.
Having carefully reviewed the parties' opening and reply claim construction briefing [ECF Nos. 81; 82; 84; 85], the Report, the Objections, the factual record, the applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report [ECF No. 172] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
DONE AND ORDERED.