claim construction

Prior Art Anticipates Claims because “A” means “One or More”

The Central District of California held that claims directed to “‘an induction actuated container which is capable of automatically opening when a user is approaching, and automatically closing when the user has left’” are… Read More

Claims Combing a System and a Method for Using the System are Invalid for Indefiniteness Under § 112

During a Markman patent claim construction proceeding, the Western District of Texas ruled multiple claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,284,203 invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because the claims “improperly combine sys… Read More

Means-Plus-Function Claim Construction of “Customization Module” Results in Indefinite Finding

In William Grecia v. Samsung Electronics (Fed. Cir. 2019) the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of invalidity for U.S. Patent 8,533,860 (the ‘860 patent) under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2 (indefinite). The invalidly determination for… Read More

Plain and Ordinary Claim Construction

In Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple, No. 2017-2265 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2018), the Federal Circuit construed a pair of claim terms under their plain and ordinary meaning in reversing summary judgment that Apple was n… Read More

Patent Drafting Tip: Take Care with Open-Ended Descriptions

Be careful with the conventional wisdom that tells a patent drafter to use permissive, open-ended language when describing features of an invention.  Like me, you may have been taught to avoid “patent obscenities” like “inv… Read More

“A” Fabric Member is Limited to Single, Continuous Member

The Federal Circuit broke from the typical open-ended construction of “a” to mean “one or more,” and instead limited “a” to mean “one single, continuous member” in the nonprecedential opinion for Wonderland Nurser… Read More

CAFC Finds Proposed Claim Construction Unsupported by Disclosure

The Federal Circuit in Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Nestle, Inc. (Appeal No. 2017-1290, Fed. Cir., decided March 13, 2018) rejected the patent owner’s claim construction as impermissibly restricting the claim term to a specific embodi… Read More

PTAB Claim Construction Results in Insufficient Evidence to Support Institution

In its Decision to grant institution of inter partes review in Apple Inc. v. Valencell, Inc. (IPR2017-01947, Decision dated Feb. 26, 2018), the PTAB construed the term “adjacent” to have a different meaning than that proposed… Read More

CAFC: “Reciprocate” and “Translate” are not Distinct Motions

In Smith & Nephew, Covidien v. Hologic, (Fed. Cir., 2018) the CAFC interpreted the claim phrase “simultaneously rotate, translate, and reciprocate” such that reciprocating includes a translating motion, but is not necessar… Read More

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