broadest reasonable interpretation

CAFC: “Injection Molded” is not Product-by-Process

In In Re: Nordt Development Co., the CAFC vacated the Board’s finding that the claim term “injection molded” was a product-by-process limitation that was not afforded patentable weight.  Claim 1 includes many instances of … Read More

Improper Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Led to Finding of Nonobviousness

In Owens Corning v. Fast Felt Corporation (decided October 11, 2017), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that obviousness was not proven in an inter parte revie… Read More

CAFC Requires Broadest Reasonable Interpretation to Correspond to Inventor’s Description in Spec

In In Re: Smith International, Inc., the CAFC held that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term must correspond with what and how the inventor describes the invention in the specification.  In this case, the CAFC h… Read More

CAFC Rejects PTAB’s Interpretation of “Lateral, Trans-Psoas Path” in IPR

In In Re: Nuvasive, Inc., the CAFC vacated the PTAB’s Final Decision in an IPR because the PTAB misconstrued the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim term “lateral, trans-psoas path.” By way of background, the pat… Read More

CAFC Vacates PTAB Decision Based on Claim Interpretation of "Aseptic"

The Federal Circuit, in Nestle USA v. Steuben Foods, vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) for an unreasonably broad interpretation of the term “aseptic.” Notably, where… Read More