United States District Court, D. Delaware
SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge.
At Wilmington this 5th day of May, 2014, having reviewed the papers submitted in connection with the parties' proposed claim construction;
IT IS ORDERED that the disputed claim language-"digital image magnification in a graphical user interface"-of United States Patent No. 5, 754, 348 ("the 348 patent") shall be construed consistent with the tenets of claim construction set forth by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005), as follows:
The court agrees that a claim construction dispute exists as the parties' experts dispute the meaning of "digital image magnification, " the proper scope of which must be determined before presentation to a jury. See O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360-63 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Because claim 1 recites "[a] method of digital image magnification in a graphical user interface, " the court declines to construe the limitation "digital image magnification" in isolation. The limitation "digital image magnification in a graphical user interface" is construed as "expanding image data - which may be represented in the form of pixels, a page description language, or any other form-on the screen of a digital device."
This construction is consistent with the specification, which discloses that "image data [acquired within the selected region] may be represented in the form of pixels, a page description language, or any other form." (348 patent, col. 4:25-29) Additionally, the court's construction of "magnification" as "the expansion of an image" is consistent with its ordinary meaning and the definition given by the inventor of the 348 patent, Kenneth Soohoo. ( See D.I. 265, ex. D at 59:25-60:4) The device on which the present method is implemented is a digital device, e.g., "a device including a ...