Cox Communications Inc., et al. v. Sprint Communications Company, L.P., et al., C.A. No. 12-487-SLR, May 15, 2015

Robinson, J.  Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment is granted.

The parties dispute whether the limitation "processing system" is indefinite.    Defendant argues that the limitation is indefinite, because the structural limitation, "processing system," is only described functionally.  The court concludes that there is no “established meaning in the art" for the disputed limitation. The claim language and the specification do not provide structural limitations for the "processing system" and do not inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty and is therefore indefinite.