PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP. v. PERMOBIL, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – A geometric orientation should be interpreted relative to an appropriate geometric reference

by Steve Driskill | Apr 5, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

A geometric orientation should be interpreted relative to an appropriate geometric reference rather than an object as a whole. Here, for example, a “perpendicular” orientation of a substantially planar mounting plate relative to a drive-wheel axis was found to require...

TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNAT v. SUNGARD DATA (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – Claim terms concerning change over time such as “static” may be interpreted as persisting indefinitely

by Steve Driskill | Apr 4, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

Claim terms concerning change over time such as “static” may be interpreted as persisting indefinitely. Here, for example, a “static” display that was updated only manually was found to be not infringed by an automatically updating display even though the updating...

SIMPLEAIR, INC. v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Different terminology is presumed to carry different meanings

by Steve Driskill | Apr 1, 2016 | [sub] consistency, Claim Interpretation

Different terminology is presumed to carry different meanings. Here, for example, the claimed “data channel” added during prosecution was found to be distinct from the specification’s discussion of “data feeds” because the term “data channel” was not used in the...

DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT INC. v. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – A method step “forming” a given element may exclude from that element any features requiring other steps

by Steve Driskill | Mar 22, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

A method step recited as resulting in the “formation” of a given element may be interpreted as excluding from that element any features requiring additional steps. Here, for example, the claimed “patterning” of an imaging layer “to form a first patterned layer” was...

CSP TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SUD-CHEMIE AG (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – The disclosure-dedication rule does not require an explicit labeling of “alternative” embodiments

by Steve Driskill | Mar 22, 2016 | [sub] doctrine of equivalents, [sub] specification, Claim Interpretation, Estoppel / Disclaimer

The disclosure-dedication rule does not require that the specification explicitly label which embodiments are “alternatives” to bar otherwise apparent alternatives from infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Here, for example, even though the specification...

DELL INC. v. ACCELERON, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – It is not reasonable to deny effect to any particular limitation of the claim language

by Steve Driskill | Mar 15, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

It is not reasonable to deny effect to any particular limitation of the claim language. Here, for example, a dedicated ethernet path claimed as providing a microcontroller module with a connection “to remotely poll” various components was found to require that the...