Can a court construe two different terms in two different claims the same way? If the specification uses those phrases in the same way, then yes. In Pavo Solutions, LLC v. Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Nos. 2016-2209, 2016-23…
Read More
In Ignite USA, LLC. V. Camelback Products, LLC., No. 2016-2747 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 12, 2017), the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s inter parte review claim construction that the claim term “connected” does not require a permane…
Read More
Tinnus Enterprises, LLC (“Tinnus”), owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,527,612 B2 (“the ‘612 patent”) recently suffered a setback when the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board ordered institution of a post-grant review of the…
Read More
Here is a case illustrating the general rule that the preamble of a patent claim is rarely construed as a substantive claim limitation. In Georgetown Rail Equipment Co. v. Holland L.P.¸ No. 2016-2297 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2017), the…
Read More
Based on a plain and ordinary meaning – and the patentee’s clear statement in distinguishing prior art during prosecution – the Federal Circuit affirms PTAB finding of invalidity of patent claims predicted on a construction…
Read More
