Southern Mills, Inc. v. Polartec, LLC

1 Citing case

  1. Tomtom, Inc. v. AOT Systems GMBH

    56 F. Supp. 3d 767 (E.D. Va. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    See also Symantec Corp. v. Computer Associates Intern., Inc., 522 F.3d 1279 (Fed.Cir.2008) (approving the reference to a “dictionary of computing” for assistance in construing a term because the claim term language, specification, and prosecution history were silent on the term's meaning).See also Southern Mills, Inc. v. Polartec, LLC, 377 Fed.Appx. 2, 6–7 (Fed.Cir.2010) (finding expert's testimony unhelpful because it consisted only of a recitation of how the expert would construe the term, not an explanation of its “accepted meaning in the field to one skilled in the art”); Symantec Corp., 522 F.3d at 1291 (stating that expert testimony that does not “identify the accepted meaning in the field to one skilled in the art is unhelpful”); Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. International Trade Com.'n, 511 F.3d 1132, 1137 (Fed.Cir.2007) (according little or no weight to expert testimony about the meaning of specification terms where the expert failed to present evidence of the generally accepted meaning of those terms to persons of ordinary skill in the art). In sharp contrast, Dr. Adolph's evidence regarding the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “storage device”—its definition in “Webster's New World History of Computer Terms”—is relevant and helpful.