Micro Motion and Krohne are involved in a dispute over whether Krohne infringes Micro Motion’s Patent No. 6,487,507 directed to a remote signal conditioner for a coriolis flowmeter. In this order Judge Gertner construed two claim terms and denied a motion to hold the patent invalid on indefiniteness grounds.
The two construed terms are “intrinsically safe” and “protection circuitry.” The court found that the first term was sufficiently understandable within the technology and disclosure of the patent that it was not indefinite. The court also found that because the second term did not invoke means-plus-function treatment, the defendant’s attempts to invalidate on indefiniteness grounds failed.
Micro Motion, Inc. v. Krohne, Inc., 09-10319-NG (D. Mass. Feb. 3, 2011)
Comments