Case No. IP-2016-000202

104.For this part of its case on infringement Teleste assumed against itself that Technetix was correct on a point of construction: the directional couplers must be replaceable without physically disturbing any group of signal outputs, i.e. they are in that sense independent of all groups of signal outputs. I have found that this interpretation of independence is not correct, but I will make the same assumption to consider a rather convoluted further argument on infringement. 105.It was common ground that if Technetix’ interpretation of ‘independent’ were right, the directional couplers in the Tap Bank are not replaceable independently of some putative groups of signal outputs. I call them that because Technetix argued that these putative groups of signal outputs were in fact not signal outputs within the meaning of claim 1. This was because they did not transmit a signal at a level suitable for a subscriber drop connection. It followed that the directional couplers in the Tap Bank are replaceable independently of all ‘genuine’ groups of signal outputs. Integer (7) is satisfied. 106.I have rejected this meaning of a ‘signal output’, so I find that Technetix’ argument is not correct. But the short point is that since Technetix were also wrong about their broad meaning of ‘independent’ (an interpretation pursued in support of an argument on validity), the Tap Bank does in fact comply with integer (7).