Opinion ID: 2810823
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: “connected to”

Text: Before trial, the parties did not propose that the district court construe the term “connected to.” ULT did not ask for its proposed construction until after trial. In resolving ULT’s motion for JMOL, the district court construed the term to mean the same thing as “for connection to.” ULT argues that its accused products do not include “output terminals connected to the filaments” of a lamp as required by claims 1, 2, and 5 because the term means something different from “for connection to.” Lighting 3 Lighting Ballast argues that ULT waived “when- ever . . . defective” arguments. We reject that argument for the reasons given in Part II.A of this opinion. LIGHTING BALLAST CONTROL LLC v. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS 19 NORTH AMERICA Ballast argues that ULT waived this argument. We agree. ULT waived its right to seek a new claim construction because ULT did not seek that construction until after trial. As in Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc. this case “falls squarely within our holding in Eli Lilly & Company v. Aradigm Corporation, where a party ‘never requested that the district court construe any terms in the relevant claim and never offered a construction of that claim, but rather only after the presentation of all of the evidence to the jury . . . even suggested that claim construction might be helpful to determine the proper scope of the claimed invention.’” 543 F.3d 683, 694 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Eli Lilly, 376 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal quotations and brackets omitted)). We hold that ULT has waived its right to request a construction of “connected to” and that ULT implicitly conceded that the meanings of “connected to” is clear and not in need of construction.