Court rejected plaintiffs assertion that patent claims of primary mode of communication and another available mode of communication had their plain meanings, adopting constructions that comported with the parties understanding that the claimed device had to designate a first mode of communication on start-up, and would use another mode when the primary one was unavailable.

Defendant not entitled to new trial where jury verdict not against great weight of evidence, as jury accepted, in part, defendants argument that plaintiffs costs were unreasonable, by reducing the amount of damages plaintiff sought.

Evaluating dismissal of a case on forum non conveniens grounds, previously dismissed by another jurisdiction on forum non conveniens grounds as well, required balanced application of forum non conveniens standards under the Cryo-Maid holding.