On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must

demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any materialfact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Pursuant to the June 14, 2010,Claim Construction Order, the Court found that the terms"Modernizing Device" and "Computing Unit" were indefinite under35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6. See Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp ElevatorAmericas Corp., --- F. Supp. 2d ----, 2010 WL 2404173 (D. Del.2010). "A determination of claim indefiniteness is a legalconclusion that is drawn from the court's performance of its dutyas the construer of patent claims." Personalized MediaCommunications, LLC v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 161 F.3d 696, 705(Fed. Cir. 1998); see Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306,1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (recognizing that indefiniteness is aquestion of law); IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,430 F.3d 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (same).Where a means-plus-function claim does not recitesufficient structure under section 112, ¶ 6, the claim is invalidfor indefiniteness under a means-plus-function analysis. SeeAmgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-LA Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1371 (Fed.Cir. 2009) ("If a claim fails to reasonably apprise one skilledin the art of the boundaries of the claim when read in light ofthe specification, then the claim is invalid under § 112 forindefiniteness."); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med.,Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Aristocrat Techs.IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWAREINVENTIO AG,:CIVIL ACTION:NO. 08-874-ERPlaintiff,::v.::THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR:AMERICAS CORPORATION,:et al.,::Defendants.:

O R D E R AND NOW

, this

4th

day of

August 2010

, it is hereby

ORDERED

that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. no.140) is

GRANTED

;