Steuben Foods Inc. v. Oystar Grp.

DECISION AND ORDER

*1 Familiarity with the relevant background of these patent infringement actions is presumed. Although we had agreed on yet another round of briefing at the conclusion of the April 10, 2018 proceeding [500],¹ upon further reflection I believe that I have enough information to properly construe the phrase “aseptically disinfecting” as used in the patents in suit. For the reasons discussed in Point A of this Decision and Order, I conclude that the phrase does not necessarily preclude the use of oxonia as the sterilant.²However, construction and validity are “separate issues that must be separately addressed”. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad. Inc.,358 F.3d 898, 911-12 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Therefore, “a decision with respect to claim construction does not constitute an implicit ruling that the construed claims are valid”. Xerox Corp. v. 3Com Corp., 61 Fed. App’x 680, 683 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Degelman Industries Ltd. v. Pro-Tech Welding & Fabrication. Inc., 630 F. Supp. 2d 273, 280 (W.D.N.Y. 2008). For the reasons discussed in Points B and C, it appears to me that the