On May 15, 2013, District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer construed claims from U.S. Patent No. 7,810,308 (“the ’308 patent”) held by plaintiff Loftex. The court held that while the term “comprising” serves as an open-ended transition element, the language of claim 1 prohibited the court from “distributing out” this term to each step of the claim. Instead, the logical application of the word “comprising” is to allow for additional individual steps to claim 1. Therefore, the court interpreted the term “2-ply yarn” to mean “a yarn having only two discrete strands that are twisted together,” rejecting Loftex’s argument that “2-ply yarn” should be construed to include yarn of three or more piles. The court also stated that the term “about” did not limit the claimed ranges and exact endpoints and construed the open-ended terms “thick yarn” and “fine count yarn” as having an approximate range of thickness between 16s and 2s count” and “about 60s (preferably, 60s) count yarns,” respectively. Finally the court found the term “ramification,” which was admitted by Loftex to be translational error, was indefinite and read it out of the claim.
Case: Loftex USA LLC. v. Trident Ltd., No. 11 Civ. 9349 (PAE), 2013 BL 128521 (S.D.N.Y. May 15, 2013)