Nanochem Solutions v. Global Green Products, 10-CV-5686, Slip. Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 29, 2013)(Hart)
The parties were seeking to construe seven separate claim terms. For example, the parties disputed the proper construction of the term “heating powdered L-aspartic acid to at least 370 degrees F to initiate a condensation reaction.” While the use or non-use of a catalyst was not mentioned in the specification elsewhere in the intrinsic record, Global Green Products attempted to have this term construed as requiring the process occur without the use of a chemical catalyst. Similarly, Global Green Products sought to have “indirectly heated plate drier” construed as the exact plate drier disclosed in a particular patents specification.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Judge Hart chose to adopt NanoChem Solutions proposed constructions for every one of the disputed terms.