(63) In essence, the parties will construe the construction.
The law recognizes two opposite ends of a spectrum for the duty to construe. on one end, the law demands that the court, not the jury, must resolve all disputes of claim scope by assigning "a fixed, unambiguous, legally operative meaning to the claim." (70) At this end, the law demands construction.
(83) The court held that "[w]hen the parties raise an actual dispute regarding the proper scope of the claims, the court, not the jury, must resolve that dispute." (84) The court continued: "In deciding that only if needs no construction because the term has a well-understood definition, the district court failed to resolve the parties' dispute because the parties disputed not the meaning of the words themselves, but the scope that should be encompassed by this claim language." (85) The Court made a significant caveat in this holding, however, by recognizing "that district courts are not (and should not be) required to construe every limitation present in a patent's asserted claims.
(90) By failing to construe the term, the Court found that the district court had left the jury free to consider these arguments.
At least one court in the wake of O2 Micro endeavored to answer a series of true-false-like questions submitted by the parties to construe the legal "scope" of claim language.
No matter how extensively trial witnesses might discuss the term 'cam,' it is not the jury's role, but the Court's exclusive obligation, to construe a patent's terms.
The Court is not only empowered, but required, to construe patent terms when the parties disagree as to their meaning.
The Court considers it unreasonable to construe
the term "Act of Congress" in the [MFA] as Congress' intent to permit state law to preempt implemented, non-self-executing treaty provisions, but not to preempt self-executing treaty provisions.