Another erroneous district court claim construction

In the non-precedential Engineered Products v. Donaldson, we have another erroneous claim construction by a district court.

The CAFC found that the district court erred in its construction of "means for selectively disengaging." The CAFC cited Frank's Casing, 389 F.3d 1370 (CAFC 2004) and Default Proof, 412 F.3d 1291.

There was a procedural issue. A summary judgment [SJ] motion was treated as a motion to amend under Rule 15 by the district court, and the CAFC found this an abuse of discretion.