and finds that none warrants rejection of Plaintiffs proposed constructions. Plaintiffs proposed constructions reflect accurately the meanings of the disputed terms as they would have been understood at the relevant time by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, Plaintiffs proposed constructions of each of the disputed terms (other than the term “having an alloy content” in claims 31, 34, 36 and 38 of the ’461 patent) are hereby adopted by the Court. The Court adopts Defendant’s proposed construction of the term “having an alloy content in the enumerated claims of the ’461 patent.” This matter remains referred to Judge Eaton for general pretrial management. SO ORDERED. 1 . See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996)
holding that matters of statutory construction are questions of law for the court to decide rather than issues of fact holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine holding it is a question of fact recognizing that under district of columbia law  what the parties deem to be the material elements of their agreement  either set forth in or absent from those documents is largely a question of fact for the jury  and concluding in that case that whether an enforceable oral contract was created and was subsequently breached is a question of fact for the jury to decide not this court