Claim Construction

News & Analysis as of

Judge McMahon issues claim construction unconstrained by two courts’ prior constructions

Judge McMahon construed terms of U.S. Patent No. 7,346,156 (“Methods and apparatuses for placing a telephone call”). The patent had previously been construed in Stanacard, LLC v. Rebtel Networks, AB, 680 F. Supp. 2d 483...more

Ongoing Developments in Patent Law: Claim Construction on Appeal, Indefiniteness, and PTAB Decisions

There are a few patent cases to keep track of in the future that may have an impact on claim construction, indefiniteness, and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions. ...more

Patent Expiry During IPR Means Phillips, not BRI, Applies

We previously discussed one Patent Owner’s attempt to avoid the “broadest reasonable interpretation” (BRI) claim construction standard by disclaiming the remainder of the patent-at-issue’s term. While some uncertainty about...more

More Details, Details

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Affinity Labs of Texas, IPR2014-01184, Paper 3, IPR2014-01182, Paper 3, IPR2014-01181, Paper 3, August 5, 2014), the Board granted the Petition a filing date, but gave the petitioner five...more

Supreme Court's Decision on Indefiniteness Constitutes Basis to Reconsider Prior Claim Construction Order But Does Not Result in...

In this patent infringement action, Defendant Lighthouse Photonics Corporation's ("Lighthouse") moved to reconsider the Court's Claim Construction Order. Lighthouse argued three reasons for reconsideration: "first, Newport...more

On a Plain and Ordinary Meaning of “Embedded” Code in a Web Page

Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc. - Addressing a district court’s construction of the claim term “embedded” code as code “written into the HTML code of the web page” and the related summary judgment of non-infringement...more

Pre-suit Claim Construction Analysis Must Satisfy Rule 11

Source Vagabond Sys. Ltd. v. Hydrapak, Inc. - Addressing the reasonableness of a pre-filing claim construction analysis in the context of Rule 11 sanctions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a...more

Lie Still: Claim Construction on Hospital Bed Unduly Limited

Hill-Rom Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corp. - Addressing whether there were any reasons to depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of terms in claim construction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit...more

Getting Around the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard

Among the advantages to inter partes review proceedings, for petitioners, is the ability to have the limitations of subject patent claims evaluated pursuant to a “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard (“BRI”), instead...more

Judge Rakoff Decides Claim Construction

Judge Rakoff construed the following terms in U.S. Patent No. 6,585,516 (“Method and system for computerized visual behavior analysis, training, and planning”) and its associated ’516 Patent Reexamination Certificate. ...more

The Federal Circuit Reverse a Finding of Anticipation of the PTAB in Inter Partes Review

In re Rambus, Inc. - Addressing a finding of anticipation by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more

IPR Spotlight Series: What to Do When the PTAB Denies Your Petition to Institute IPR

Inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) became available on September 16, 2012 as a post-grant review procedure to challenge the patentability of issued claims based on prior art patents and...more

Public Comments on AIA Trial Proceedings – the USPTO is Listening

As mentioned in a previous article, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held a series of roundtables throughout the United States this spring to solicit public feedback on AIA trials. Having received some feedback during...more

Recent SCOTUS Decisions in Intellectual Property Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court heard a landmark number of intellectual property cases during its 2013-2014 term. Below is a summary of recent decisions issued in 2014....more

The PTAB Was Right the First Time

EMC Corp. v. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC - In a final written decision in an inter partes review (IPR), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determined that under the broadest reasonable interpretation claim...more

More Details, Details

Integrated Global Concepts, Inc. v. J2 Global, Inc., IPR2014-01027, Paper 4 (July 7, 2014), the Board granted the petition a filing date, but required the petition to fix the claim charts, which may not “include arguments,...more

Claim Construction: When Figures Do Not Match Their Description

GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Agilight, Inc. - Addressing the issue of claim construction in light of an appeal of summary judgment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a district...more

Court Denies Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Expert Testimony Prior to Claim Construction

Plaintiff Glas-Weld Systems, Inc., filed a patent infringement and unfair competition action against defendants Michael P. Boyle, dba Surface Dynamix, and Christopher Boyle. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment and to...more

Lessons from Nautilus v. Biosig at the Supreme Court  [Video]

David K.S. Cornwell, director at the intellectual property law firm Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, P.L.L.C., discusses the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. He examines the...more

Rebalancing Indefiniteness: Nautilus v. Biosig

In a highly anticipated decision, the Supreme Court has rejected the Federal Circuit’s standard for indefiniteness – that a claim is indefinite only when it is not amenable to a construction or “insolubly ambiguous” – and...more

IP Buzz - June 2014

In this issue: - Patent Reform: It's Alive! - Nautilus: New Test, Same Application? - Supreme Court Opens Door to Food and Beverage Label Challenges Under Lanham Act - Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank:...more

Supreme Court Corner - Q2 2014

Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. - Patent: Decided: April 29, 2014 - Holding: A patent case is “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 when it “stands out from others with respect to the...more

Expert Declaration Not Allowed as Supplemental Information Related to Claim Constructions

Unhappy with the Board’s claim constructions, Patent Challenger in Rackspace US, Inc. and Rackspace Hosting, Inc. v. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC and Level 3 Communications, (IPR2014-00057, IPR2014-00058, and IPR2014-00062)...more

Claim Term of Expired Patent Given non-BRI Construction

An interesting argument relative to the construction of claim terms in an inter partes review proceeding has been percolating in recent months. Namely – what claim construction should be applied when a patent subject to...more

BRI = Ordinary Meaning, II

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...more

146 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 6