GS CLEANTECH CORPORATION v. CARDINAL ETHANOL, LLC

Filing 115

ORDER entered on motion for clarification regarding Claim Construction (See Order and new Claim Construction Chart). Signed by Judge Larry J. McKinney on 12/2/2011. Associated Cases: 1:10-ml-02181-LJM-DML, 1:10-cv-00180-LJM-DML, 1:10-cv-08000-LJM-DML , 1:10-cv-08001-LJM-DML, 1:10-cv-08002-LJM-DML, 1:10-cv-08003-LJM-DML, 1:10-cv-08004-LJM-DML, 1:10-cv-08005-LJM-DML, 1:10-cv-08006-LJM-DML, 1:10-cv-08007-LJM-DML, 1:10-cv-08008-LJM-DML, 1:10-cv-08009-LJM-DML, 1:10-cv-08010-LJM-DML, 1:10-cv-08011-LJM-DML(CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

IN RE: METHOD OF PROCESSING
ETHANOL BYPRODUCTS AND
RELATED SUBSYSTEMS (‘858)
PATENT LITIGATION

)
)
)
)

Master Docket:
1:10-ml-02181-LJM-DML

ORDER ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’, with the exception of Adkins
Energy LLC, Request for Clarification of Claim Construction Order [dkt. no. 189]. Plaintiff
opposes the request and responds with what appears to be a motion for reconsideration
styled as a response to Defendants’ request. The Court clarifies its Claim Construction
Order below and noting that Plaintiff has presented no new arguments or evidence that was
not available prior to the Court’s Claim Construction Order in its response, declines to
reconsider its Markman ruling. See Moro v. Shell Oil Co., 91 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir. 1996)
(noting that motions for reconsideration do not give parties the opportunity to rehash old
arguments or present evidence that could have been presented prior to the ruling at issue).
In its Claim Construction Order, the Court concluded that the syrup stream leaving
the oil recovery step is “substantially free of oil” in each of the independent claims. See
Dkt. No. 169 at 20. The Court neglected to include this portion of the construction in its
claim construction chart, but that does not mean that it did not intend for the “substantially
free of oil” language to be part of its final construction. To that end, the Court revises its
claim construction chart below in order to accurately reflect its conclusions in its Claim
Construction Order.

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CHART
Claim Term

Construction

“concentrate”/”concentrated
byproduct”/”concentrated thin stillage”

“syrup containing water, oil, and solids
resulting from the concentrating or
evaporating process”

“mechanically processing”

“to subject to a mechanical device (or
devices) to effect a particular result”

“heating and mechanically processing the
concentrate/concentrated
byproduct/concentrated thin stillage to
separate the oil from the
concentrate/concentrated
byproduct/concentrated thin stillage”

“the Concentrate Term (as construed by
the Court in this Order) subjected to heat
and a mechanical device (or devices) to
extract a product that is substantially oil
from the Concentrate Term (as construed
by the Court in this Order) and the
concentrate stream coming out of the
mechanical device (or devices) is
substantially free of oil”

“centrifuging the concentrate to recover
oil”

“processing the concentrate (as defined
by the Court in this Order) with a
centrifuge to separate the oil from the
concentrate so that the oil stream coming
out of the centrifuge is substantially oil
and the remaining concentrate stream
coming out of the centrifuge is
substantially free of oil”

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 2011.

________________________________
LARRY J. McKINNEY, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution to all counsel of record.
2