What is important to notice when comparing this case to X2Y Attenuators is that there was no feature in the Scriptpro claims that the Court could use as a textual hook to limit the claims to require sensors.  Otherwise, it seems likely that the district court would have construed the claims to require sensors based on the statements in the specification.  Notably, claim construction is a legal issue, while compliance with the written description requirement is a factual issue.  Thus, if the claims were construed to require sensors, the Federal Circuit may well have affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement (assuming the accused products indisputably lacked sensors).  Ordinarily, a case such as Scriptpro would probably have been decided in the patentee's favor because the originally-filed claims did not include sensors.  However, the opinion indicates that the patentee may have waived that issue, so the Federal Circuit did not base its opinion on it.  

The Scriptpro opinion is important both for patent prosecutors and patent litigators.  Patent prosecutors should (again) be reminded of the dangers of including limiting characterizations of an invention in their specifications.  Litigators should take note that when limiting characterizations of an invention are present in the specification of an asserted patent, not only may they provide a basis for seeking a narrowing claim construction to secure a judgment of non-infringement (as in X2Y Attenuators), but they also may provide a basis for invalidating the claims under the written description requirement if the court declines to construe the claims narrowly.