The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of the claim phrase: “a contact hole for source wiring and gate wiring connection terminals.” This phrase could have been interpreted as requiring either two contact holes – one for the source wiring connection terminal and one for the gate wiring connection terminal – or one contact hole that was shared by both the source wiring connection terminal and the gate wiring connection terminal. The district court rejected all four of the parties’ proposed constructions and held that the patent specification did not support either a single hole to two holes. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that persons of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification would have understood the specification to teach two contact holes, rather than one shared contact hole.
Eidos Display, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., Case No. 2014-1254 (March 10, 2015); Opinion by: Chen, joined by Wallach and Taranto; Appealed From: District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Davis, J. Read the full opinion here.
If you have questions or need more information, please contact email@example.com.