IP Blog
The Claims Interpreted Report
Prosecution Disclaimer Pitfalls
In Speedtrack, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (June 3, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed not only the district court’s findings relating to patent infringement, but also the importance of prosecution history when interpreting the claims. More specifically, the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding that Amazon.com et al. (“Amazon”) did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,544,360. The finding of infringement hinged on whether...
Attacking Individual References of an Obviousness Combination
In re: CSP Technologies (Fed. Cir., Jan. 21, 2021) is a nonprecedential opinion that nevertheless provides us with a good excuse to discuss In Re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 ( CCPA 1981) which is cited from time-to-time by Examiners during patent prosecution. This case is an appeal of an ex parte PTAB decision for US Patent Application No. 12/992,749. The...
Does a “Plurality A, B, and C” Require More than One A, More than one B, and More than One C?: An Interpretation of Disjunctive and Conjunctive Phrases
SIMO Holdings v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network (Fed. Cir., Jan. 5, 2021) is a precedential opinion that touches on an interesting claim interpretation topic regarding disjunctive and conjunctive phrases. Independent claim 8 is at issue: 8. A wireless communication client or extension unit comprising a plurality of memory, processors, programs, communication circuitry, authentication data stored on a subscribed identify module...
Adjectives in Claim Construction
Comcast Cable Communications v. Promptu Systems Corporation (Fed. Cir., Jan. 4, 2021) is a nonprecedential opinion but nevertheless still provides an example of claim construction based on a modifying adjective. The Appellant appealed the IPR final-written decision in which the PTAB held Appellant failed to prove that the challenged claims of US7,260,538 would have been obvious. The claim term “command...
How to (Not) Prove Infringement of a Means-Plus-Function Patent Claim: SPEX Technologies, Inc. v. Apricorn
A patent plaintiff saw its jury trial victory vacated when the court granted a defense motion for judgment as a matter of law under FRCP 50(b), finding that the plaintiff had not proved that the accused products had structure corresponding to claimed means. SPEX Technologies, Inc. v. Apricorn, No. CV 16-07349 JVS (AGRx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2020). The jury...
Means-Plus-Function Construction Can Lead to Indefiniteness
In Unicorn Global Inc. v. Golab, Inc. No. 3:19-CV-0754-N (N.D. Tex. May 26, 2020), the Northern District of Texas construed several disputed terms of U.S. Patent No. 9,376,155 and U.S. Patent No. 9,452,802, and found claims to be indefinite means-plus-function claims without having structure described in the specifications. The patents are directed to personal transportation devices known as hoverboards which include...
Federal Circuit Uses Claim Construction to Overturn Lack of Enablement: McRO v. Bandai Namco
In its second time considering a patent, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling on noninfringement but overturned its ruling of lack of enablement in McRO v. Bandai Namco. The decision rested on the claim construction of one term, “vector.” That construction excluded the accused products from the scope of the patent, but it likewise excluded examples that the...
Lack of Algorithm in Specification Renders Means-Plus-Function Claim Indefinite
The Eastern District of Texas held that the only asserted claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,452,515 was indefinite because “the term ‘[means] for encoding these labels in a random order’” (alterations in original) invokes 35 USC § 112 ¶ 6, and “the specification of the ‘515 Patent does not disclose an algorithm for performing the encoding function required by this...
When Are Preambles Limiting?
In his recent article Without Preamble, Stanford professor Mark Lemley surveys the morass of law on determining when patent claim preambles are limiting, and he predicts that it will be swept away if the Supreme Court ever faces the issue. Given that possibility, how should practitioners think about drafting preambles when applying for a patent? Much of legal academic literature...
Claim Interpretation and Definiteness of Terms of Degree
In Kitsch LLC v. Deejayzoo, LLC (Case No. LA CV19-02556 JAK (RAOx)) the Central District of California interpreted claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,021,930 that included terms of degree as being sufficiently definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The case was initiated by Plaintiff Kitsch, who sought a judgment declaring invalidity of the ‘930 patent. The ‘930 patent is owned...