IN RE HOLNESS (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – A claim term may be given its plain meaning when the specification does not limit its form or structure

by Steve Driskill | May 20, 2015 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

A claim term may be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with its plain meaning when the specification does not place any restriction on its form or structure. Here, for example, a “timer” was found to encompass gears in the prior art that control a...

APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – The term “substantially” does not necessarily require an objective standard of measure

by Steve Driskill | May 18, 2015 | [sub] clarity, Indefiniteness

The term “substantially” does not necessarily require an objective standard of measure as long as the claim scope is reasonably certain. Here, for example, a user interface feature in which double tapping a displayed document causes it to be enlarged and...

AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Direct infringement under § 271(a) does not incorporate joint tortfeasor liability

by Steve Driskill | May 13, 2015 | [sub] divided, Infringement

Absent a principal-agent relationship, a contractual arrangement, or a joint enterprise, direct infringement under § 271(a) does not incorporate joint tortfeasor liability. Here, for example, although the accused infringer maintained servers that performed part of the...

ARCELORMITTAL FRANCE v. AK STEEL CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Reissue amendments may be deemed impermissibly broadening in view of prior litigation claim construction

by Steve Driskill | May 12, 2015 | [sub] reissue, PTO Procedure

Amendments during reissue may be deemed broadening and thereby render a patent unenforceable if they broaden a previous and controlling claim construction from prior litigation even if the PTO’s broadest reasonable interpretation may perceive them as narrowing. Here,...

TADAYON v. SAUCON TECHNOLOGIES (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Undefined limitations may be interpreted as broadly as their literal recitations permit

by Steve Driskill | May 11, 2015 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

Undefined limitations may be interpreted as broadly as their literal recitations permit. Here, for example, a frequency for “low radiation power absorption” was found to be broad enough to encompass any frequency that can be used in any manner to provide a lower dose...