The Plaintiff alleged patent infringement, and the Defendants raised a number of grounds of invalidity in defence. The Defendants brought the within motion, seeking summary judgment on the grounds of inutility.
The Court first noted that there was no evidence provided as to the understanding of a person skilled in the art of the claims. Accordingly, the Court was required to construe the claims without the aid of expert evidence. The Court found that the Defendants misconstrued the promise of the patent and that a person skilled in the art would be capable of optimally working the invention through routine trial and error. The Court held that even if wrong about the promise of the patent, the evidence was insufficient to warrant summary judgment.