BRI = Ordinary Meaning, II

more+
less-
more+
less-

In Square, Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper, IPR2014-00157, Paper 17 (June 23, 2014), the Board concluded that in view of the patent expiration, the claims can no longer be amended, and thus they should be constructed according to their ordinary meaning. However, the Board concluded that the application of the Phillips standard did not change the construction of (1) “universal credit card/universal credit card apparatus”; (2) “transducer”; (3) “host system”; and (4) “emitter” as set forth in the Decision to Institute Review.  Yet again indicating that the broadest reasonble construction is often the ordinary meaning.

 

Topics:  Claim Construction, Patent Litigation, Patents

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 »

CONNECT

Harness Dickey, founded in Michigan in 1921, specializes in intellectual property law. The firm’s... View Profile »


Follow Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC:

Reporters on Deadline