![\"\"](\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/02\/US-5277125-Claim-32.jpg\" "\\"US")
<\/a><\/p>\nThe problem is that Claim 3 specifies a<\/em> track, but then calls for magnet assemblies between said tracks<\/em>.\u00a0 The inventor testitifed that he\u00a0knew what it\u00a0meant:<\/p>\n But it did not\u00a0say<\/em> what he meant.\u00a0 This is reminsecent of Chef America v. Lamb Weston<\/em>, 358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) where the claim “heating to” rather than “heating at” 450\u00b0 proved fatal to the patent.<\/p>\n There were serveral possible fixes, none of which were made.\u00a0 Precisely because there were\u00a0serveral fixes, Magistrate Thynge found that correction would be subject to reasonable debate, so that Court was unable to\u00a0correct the error under Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp.<\/em>, 350 F.3d 1348, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003).\u00a0 The Magistrate granted summary judgment that claim 3 of the ‘125 patent is invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 112, Paragraph \u00b62.<\/p>\n Even of the District Court does not adopt this part of the Magistrate’s recommendation, at a minimum the less than precise language of claim 3 wasted time and resources of the patentee.\u00a0 Words of a patent claim are critical, and everyone connected with the patent is responsible for making sure it is correct.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" On February 7, 2014, Magistrate Thynge issued a report and recommendation in\u00a0 Magnetar Technologies Corp. v Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc., 07-127-LPS-MPT (D.Del) that among other things found Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 5,277,125 invalid for indefiniteness.\u00a0 Claim 3 … Continue reading <\/a><\/p>\n