ORDER This order is in response to the Federal Circuit's September 23, 2016 remand order (Server Tech., Inc. v. Am. Power Conversion Corp., 657 Fed. Appx. 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) and the parties' December 29, 2016 joint status report (ECF No. 690). I. Facts and Procedural Background

The term “associated with” requires commonality and does not address the location or physical connection. See Server Tech., Inc. v. Am. Power Conversion Corp., 657 Fed.Appx. 1030, 1033-34 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This is consistent with the ‘116 Patent specification, which, for example, teaches that the air purification facility “may be part of the adjustable bed facility 102, a freestanding device or facility, or the like.”

Def.'s Statement of Material Facts ¶ 113.SeeServer Tech., Inc. v. Am. Power Conversion Corp. , 657 F. App'x 1030, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The district court incorrectly interpreted the term ‘comprising’ in claim 15 of the '543 patent to require that all six elements must be contained inside a single enclosure.").Seeid.

On September 23, 2016, the Federal Circuit held that this court's claim construction of the term "plugstrip" as used in the patents-in-suit was erroneous and issued an order partially reversing the jury verdict and remanding the action to this court.SeeServer Tech., Inc. v. Am. Power Conversion Corp. , 657 Fed.Appx. 1030, 1033–34 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thereafter, Schneider filed the present renewed motion for summary judgment that Claim 15 of both STI's '543 and '771 patents are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. ECF No. 718.

In claim construction, the word "'comprising' is a term of art that means 'including but not limited to.'" Server Tech., Inc. v. Am. Power Conversion Corp., 657 F. App'x 1030, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp., 504 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, the fact that claim 1 describes an apparatus "comprising" two surfaces ('769 Patent 13:59-67) is not dispositive evidence of whether the apparatus of claim 1 also encompasses a spindle or a CVD reactor.

[The jury's verdict has subsequently been vacated pursuant to the court's February 23, 2017 vacate order. Doc. #691. An amended verdict reflecting the Federal Circuit's decision in Server Tech., Inc. v. Am. Power Conversion Corp., 657 Fed. Appx. 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2016) is forthcoming and those amendments, particularly as they relate to the finding of infringement for the AP7900 products and the advisory finding on the issue of obviousness, are reflected in the amended order.] From May 28 through May 30, 2014, following the jury trial, the court conducted a bench trial on APC's inequitable conduct claim.

Server Tech, Inc., case no. 3:06-cv-0698-LRH-VPC (ECF No. 590). APC appealed the jury verdict to the Federal Circuit. Server Tech, Inc., case no. 3:06-cv-0698-LRH-VPC (ECF No. 673). On September 23, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an order in STI I and remanded that action back to this court. See Server Tech., Inc. v. Am. Power Conversion Corp., 657 Fed. Appx. 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Upon receiving the Federal Circuit's decision, the court issued an order setting forth the procedure for the continuation of litigation in STI I. See Server Tech, Inc., case no. 3:06-cv-0698-LRH-VPC (ECF No. 691).