EIDOS DISPLAY, LLC, EIDOS III, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA, CHI MEI INNOLUX CORPORATION, CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS USA INC., CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES, LTD., HANNSTAR DISPLAY CORPORATION, HANNSPREE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants-Appellees, 779 F.3d 1360

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-Because patent claim, when read in light of the specification and prosecution history, informed with reasonable certainty those skilled in the art at the time the patent was filed about the scope of the claimed invention, district court's grant of summary judgment of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C.S. § 112, para. 2 was subject to reversal; [2]-Intrinsic record made sufficiently clear that a person of ordinary skill in the art—someone with knowledge of LCD manufacturing—after considering the limitation in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appeared, and in the context of the entire patent, including the specification, would understand the limitation-at-issue to call for separate, different contact holes for the source wiring connection terminals and gate wiring connection terminals, rather than one shared contact hole.