Digest of Eidos Display, LLC v. Au Optronics Corp., No. 2014-1254 (Fed. Cir. March 10, 2015) (precedential). On appeal from E.D. Tex. Before Wallach, Taranto, and Chen.

Procedural Posture: Plaintiff patent holder appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment that U.S. Pat. No. 5,879,958 was invalid for indefiniteness. CAFC reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

  • Indefiniteness: The district court’s judgment of invalidity for indefiniteness was reversed because it was sufficiently clear that when read in light of the specification and prosecution history, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “a contact hole for source wiring and gate wiring connection terminals” to not be indefinite. In light of the intrinsic record, a person of ordinary skill in the art in manufacturing LCD panels would understand that this term did not call for one shared contact hole, but rather separate contact holes for each source wiring connection terminals and gate wiring connection terminals, as described in the specification and prosecution history. At the time of filing, the only industry practice was to create individual contact holes. While a shared contact hole was conceivable, no expert was aware of any teaching where a shared contact hole was ever created.