Defendant's motion to exclude portions of plaintiff's noninfringement expert's testimony was granted where the court concluded the expert's opinions were based upon a mistaken construction that "a" referred to a single computer instead of "one or more." "At points in the [patent-in-suit], the article 'a' is present in a claim containing the transitional phrase 'comprising.' As such, it is subject to the general rule that 'a' or 'an' carries the meaning of 'one or more.'. . . [G]iven the claim construction clarifications provided in this order, [plaintiff's expert] will not be allowed to offer a noninfringement opinion that is based upon his assertion that a 'principal market maker computer' means a single computer operated by a principal market maker."
Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc., et. al. v. Garber, 1-09-cv-03895 (ILND April 29, 2011, Order) (Castillo, J.)