In Toyota Motor Corporation v. LeRoy G. Hagenbuch, IPR 2013-00483, Paper 21 (April 16, 2014), the patent expired during the inter partes review, as a result the parties and the Board agreed that “broadest reasonable interpretation” was no longer appropriate.  (This mirrors the treatment in reexamination where because expiration of the patent means that the claims can no longer be amended, broadest reaasonable interpretation is no longer appropriate).  The Board which had instituted the Inter Partes Review based upon the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term monitoring: “monitoring” namely, “watching, keeping track of, or checking.”  The Board was now forced to construe the term “monitoring,” which it determined meant: “watching or keeping track of, or checking.”  At least in this case the interpretation and the broadest reasonable interpretation were exactly the same!

Topics:  Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Patent Litigation, Patents, Toyota

Published In: Civil Procedure Updates, Intellectual Property Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »