On Tuesday, the Eastern District of Texas court presiding over the case denied the request put forth by Ultravision Technologies LLC, a manufacturer and distributor of outdoor LED lighting products and digital displays. The jury previously ruled in favor of defendants Shenzhen Absen Optoelectronic Co., Ltd. and Absen Inc. (together, Absen) finding that three Ultravision patent claims relating to LED panel construction were not infringed and were invalid at the conclusion of a six-day trial.
In its motion for a new trial and to alter the judgment, Ultravision challenged several of Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s legal rulings. The plaintiff first argued that the court’s construction of “sealed to be waterproof” was flawed, resulting in the erroneous finding of infringement and the erroneous finding of invalidity. The court overrode these contentions after reaffirming its claim construction on multiple bases.
The language of the claims and specification of the asserted patents lended credence to the court’s construction, the opinion said. In addition, Judge Gilstrap ruled that his construction neither violated the principles of claim differentiation nor clashed with the patents’ prosecution history. Finally, the court found that even if its construction of “sealed to be waterproof” was erroneous, the outcome would remain unchanged because the plaintiff failed to offer expert testimony that could have led the jury to a different conclusion.
Judge Gilstrap also batted down arguments that his construction of two other claim terms created prejudicial error. The court did however grant Ultravision’s motion to amend the judgement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to reflect the terms of the parties’ stipulation. The court summarily noted that the motion was unopposed and determined that it should be granted.
Ultravision is represented by Fabricant LLP and McKool Smith P.C. and Absen by Goodwin Procter LLP and Gillam & Smith LLP.
