IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

INVENTIO AG, : CIVIL ACTION

: NO. 08-874-ER
Plaintiff, :
:
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;1

1
On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party must
demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact. 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 under
35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 6. See Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator
Americas Corp., --- F. Supp. 2d ----, 2010 WL 2404173 (D. Del.
2010). "A determination of claim indefiniteness is a legal
conclusion that is drawn from the court's performance of its duty
as the construer of patent claims." Personalized Media
Communications, 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 a
question 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 recite

sufficient structure under section 112, ¶ 6, the claim is invalid
for indefiniteness under a means-plus-function analysis. See
Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-LA Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1371 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) ("If a claim fails to reasonably apprise one skilled
in the art of the boundaries of the claim when read in light of
the specification, then the claim is invalid under § 112 for
indefiniteness."); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med.,
Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Aristocrat Techs.
 It is hereby further ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to

Strike the Declaration of Dr. Philip Koopman or in the

Alternative for Additional Discovery Before Reply (doc. no. 155)

is DENIED as moot;

It is hereby further ORDERED that Defendants' Motion

for Limited Reopening of Discovery and To Compel Document

Production and Deposition Related to Plaintiff's Expert Dr.

Philip Koopman (doc. no. 157) is DENIED as moot.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/S/ EDUARDO C. ROBRENO

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1338 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). As this Court's June 14, 2010 Order found certain
claims contained in the patents-in-suit to be indefinite, the
claims, and by extension the patents-in-suit, are indefinite as a
matter of law. Therefore, Defendants' motion for summary
judgment is granted.

- 2 -