Court rejected assertion that patent claims were indefinite where intrinsic record provided enough explanation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand the scope of the claim and when a product would fall within that scope.

Court dismissed derivative complaint where single-member special litigation committee conducted adequate review of the worthiness of the litigation and its conclusions were sufficiently supported by evidence, and there was an insufficient basis to question the single member's independence from other board members potentially facing liability.

Court denied summary judgment to defendants for plaintiffs' contributory infringement claim where there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendants' product had other substantial non-infringing uses or whether defendants manufactured the product specifically for use in a manner that infringed upon plaintiffs' patents.

Court declined to strike patent invalidity defense raised by licensee where it could continue to accrue royalty obligations under the terms of the license agreement despite the patents having expired and other parties who may have licensed or infringed upon the patent would also benefit from a finding of invalidity.