RANGE OF MOTION PRODUCTS, LLC v. ARMAID COMPANY INC. [ORDER]

RANGE OF MOTION PRODUCTS, LLC v. ARMAID COMPANY INC. [ORDER] Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized. Review the linked PDF before publication. The extracted conclusion below is included for audit. AFFIRMED conclusion about the meaning of the patent term," in other instances "a factual finding may be close to dispositive of the ultimate legal question of the proper meaning of the term in the context of the patent." Teva, 574 U.S. at 333. "Nonetheless, the [Page 8] Case: 23-2427 Document: 85 Page: 8 Filed: 08/11/2026 RANGE OF MOTION PRODUCTS, LLC v. ARMAID COMPANY INC. 5 patent [claim] has been infringed is a two-part test," re- quiring that "the court first construe[ ] the claim to deter- mine its meaning and scope." Lanard Toys Ltd. v. Dolgencorp LLC, 958 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Elmer v. ICC Fabricating, Inc., 67 F.3d 1571, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1995)); see Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 679. And the Supreme Court has unequivocally held that, in the context of utility patents, claim construction is a question of law for the court to decide. Markman v. Westview Instru- ments, Inc. claim construction precedential claim construction precedential claim construction