IP Blog
patent claim interpretation
Claim Term “Important” Leads to Indefiniteness
The Eastern District of Texas recently invalidated several patent claims that the court had found indefinite in a separate claim construction ruling in the case Uniloc 2017 v. Samsung. Interestingly, the court found the claim term “partition of important subject matter” indefinite in some claims and not others, despite stating that the claim term had the same meaning in all...
The Federal Circuit on Claim Construction and Indefiniteness
In the recent case Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit overturned a district court’s claim construction for reading in a limitation and upheld the district court’s invalidation for indefiniteness for including a subjective term. Claim Construction Intellectual Ventures is a patent assertion entity with an extensive portfolio, from agriculture and construction to nanotechnology and—relevant here—communications....
Not All Patent Prosecution Disclaimers Are Broadly Construed
Not all patent prosecution disclaimers are broadly construed; rather, in construing patent claim terms disclaimers must be closely aligned to actual arguments made during prosecution. On March 3, 2017 the Federal Circuit in Technology Properties Limited, et al v. Huawei, again gave guidance on the issue of prosecution history disclaimer. The patent at issue in Technology Properties related to a...
PTAB: BRI of Method Claim Requires Conditional Limitation
Thirty-five PTAB decisions cite Ex parte Schulhauser since that case was designated precedential in October 2016. Of those thirty-five decisions, all except for one held that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim does not require conditional limitations. The one exception is Ex parte Hehenberger, Appeal No. 2015-007421 (Jan. 31, 2016). By way of background, Ex parte Schulhauser held...