Court Opinion

ID: 9497199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:45:25.325146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:03.011347
License: Public Domain

PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the panel’s decision to remand this case for the third time on the issue of claim construction with respect to the claim term “layer.” Claim construction is a matter of law, and as such it receives de novo review. The *1375purpose is objective correctness; the record is complete, the question is ripe. It is time for decision, not for remand.
There have been three Markman hearings and now three appeals, all directed to the meaning of the term “layer.” For the first two hearings the definition was applied to the titanium dioxide deposits, and in the second appeal this court held that a layer is a material of optically significant uniform chemical composition. In the third Markman hearing the district court held that Cardinal’s multiple deposits of its center zinc oxide component produced multiple layers. This court now appears to hold that its definition in the previous appeal, wherein “layer” was defined in' the context of the “interlayers” of titanium dioxide, bars the district court from considering the additional aspect of whether multiple sputtering deposits can produce multiple “layers,” unless they affect' the structure and optical properties. However, when the later claim construction is made in a different technical context from that which was earlier considered, in the interest of correctness the court must consider the new context.
This case was filed in 1996. Before the district court the parties produced extensive evidence, in the form of expert and other witness testimony, and physical exhibits and demonstrations. The district court has three times held, on summary judgment upon deciding the legal question of claim construction, that there is no infringement. It is a relatively simple technical question, for which the record is fully developed. After eight years this question of law requires finality, not a fourth cycle of Markman hearing and appeal. From my colleagues’ remand for this purpose, I respectfully dissent.