Big News

The Defendants contend that the statement “as claimed” in the underlined portion of the second explanation is a clear disavowal of claim scope as to all claims of the ‘858 patent and requires the concentrate or syrup after the oil recovery step to be substantially free of oil. The Court disagrees.
************************************

For these reasons, the Court concludes that only claim 7 of the ‘516 patent and claim 8 of the ‘484 patent require that the post-oil recovery step syrup stream be “substantially oil free.”

************************************

With respect to the absolute percentages advocated by the Defendants’, the Court concludes that the argument improperly seeks to import limitations from the specification into the claims. First, the Defendants cannot point to any language in the claims, the specification or the prosecution history that limit the substantially oil free limitation to the quantities listed in Figure 2 of the ‘858 patent family. There simply is none. The claims, as recited above, are completely devoid of any reference to numerical quantities.

************************************

Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that supplemental briefing on infringement will not suffice. Therefore, all pending motions for summary judgment are hereby

DENIED without prejudice and with leave to re-file them according to the Revised and Amended Order on Case Management, Dkt. No. 780, and the Defendants’, with the exception of Adkins, Motion to Strike, Dkt. No. 652, is

DENIED.
 

See Here
SkunK

WOW!  Look at mechanically processing. . . covers everything?  Look at substantially oil free concentrate . . . it appears to cover a huge spectrum  - compares it to the incoming . .  vice pure oil.