“Whether a District Court’s construction of a claim term in an asserted patent, determined to be consistent with a totality of the evidence based on analysis of conflicting definitions provided in multiple incorporated-by-reference patents, should be reviewed for clear error as required by Teva.”
“Where an inventor, acting as his own lexicographer, defined a claim term to have multiple conflicting meanings, may this Court, notwithstanding Phillips, Modine, and X2Y Attenuators, construe that term differently from the inventor’s own definitions?”
