ASM Assembly Systems Switzerland GmbH et al. v. QTS Engineering, Inc. (16-cv-10919).

Judge Sorokin construed claim terms in a dispute over stencil printing screens for electronics manufacturing. While the particular constructions of the terms is of limited interest to those not involved in the litigation, the process by which the claims were construed is potentially worthwhile for future litigants to know.  Here, Judge Sorokin made a point of not reading limitations from the specification into the claims.  He noted that “the written description part of a specification itself does not delimit the right to exclude,” and that the specification did not expressly limit the terms in dispute.  He further refused to limit a broad claim terms because “the court cannot construe a claim to add a limitation not present in the claim itself” and because such a limitation would render claim language in a related patent superfluous.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s