PURDUE PHARMA L.P. v. EPIC PHARMA, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Process limitations having no effect on a claimed composition will not be given patentable weight

by Steve Driskill | Feb 1, 2016 | [sub] product-by-process, Claim Interpretation

Process limitations in a claimed composition having no effect on the structure of the claimed composition will not be given patentable weight. Here, for example, a claim limitation specifying that a particular impurity in the pharmaceutical composition being claimed...

AKZO NOBEL COATINGS, INC. v. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Interpretations that render some portion of the claim language superfluous are disfavored

by Steve Driskill | Jan 29, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

Interpretations that render some portion of the claim language superfluous are disfavored. Here, for example, the claimed “pressurized collection vessel” was found to require an accumulation of material rather than just receiving material in a series of pipes and heat...

WI-LAN, INC. v. APPLE INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Even small differences can be sufficient to defeat infringement under the doctrine of equivalents

by Steve Driskill | Jan 8, 2016 | [sub] doctrine of equivalents, Claim Interpretation

Even small differences in operation or design can be sufficient to defeat infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Here, for example, a parallel architecture that inverted the order of operations for data encoding as compared to the claimed invention, and...

IN RE DISTEFANO (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Origin identification does not constitute printed matter under the printed matter doctrine

by Steve Driskill | Dec 17, 2015 | [sub] printed matter, Claim Interpretation

Unless claimed directly, origin identification does not constitute printed matter under the printed matter doctrine. Here, for example, the origin of certain web design code snippets (or “assets”) recited as being “authored by third party authors” was found not to...

CARDSOFT, LLC v. VERIFONE INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Claim terms used in same way as conventional systems will be interpreted to require all associated standard features

by Steve Driskill | Dec 2, 2015 | [sub] extrinsic evidence, Claim Interpretation

A claim term used in exactly the same way as in conventional systems will be interpreted to require all the standard features thereof. Here, for example, the claimed “virtual machine” was interpreted as requiring the typical limitation of conventional “virtual...

STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC. v. SIPNET EU S.R.O. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Unambiguous plain meaning of a claim limitation is controlling over other descriptions in the specification

by Steve Driskill | Nov 25, 2015 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation

Absent clear redefinition or disavowal, the plain meaning of a claim limitation will be controlling over other descriptions in the specification when the plain meaning is unambiguous. Here, for example, a “query” concerning the online status of other network devices...