INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Claim interpretation cannot read out claim terms

by Steve Driskill | Jun 23, 2014 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

Although claims are not necessarily limited to only the disclosed embodiments, they cannot be interpreted in a manner that would read out any of the claim terms. “[C]laims are interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.” Background / Facts:...

NASSAU PRECISION CASTING v. ACUSHNET COMPANY, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Methods of product design

by Steve Driskill | Jun 6, 2014 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

Method claims may encompass not only methods of manufacture but also other types of processes, including those performed by a designer of a new product, and therefore must be read reasonably to determine the appropriate context and corresponding actors covered....

HOWLINK GLOBAL LLC v. NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Order of operations affecting interpretation of individual claim terms

by Steve Driskill | Apr 2, 2014 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

While a context-specific analysis, an explicit order of operations in the claims may affect the interpretation of individual claim terms by providing additional antecedent basis for linking elements among the recited steps. Background / Facts: The patent being...

SHIRE DEVELOPMENT, LLC v. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Adjectives characterizing claim elements

by Steve Driskill | Mar 28, 2014 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

While a fact specific inquiry, an adjective characterizing a claim element may be interpreted as a direct property of the claim element itself rather than an emergent property derived from the claim element’s interaction with other elements (claimed or unclaimed)....

VEDERI, LLC v. GOOGLE, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Required consideration of all claim terms

by Steve Driskill | Mar 14, 2014 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

All words in a claim must be given due consideration. “A claim construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.” Background / Facts: The patents being asserted here relate to methods for creating synthesized...

BOSE CORPORATION v. SDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Physical vs. paper relationships among claim components

by Steve Driskill | Mar 14, 2014 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

On the one hand, this is a good case to cite during prosecution when facing a broadest reasonable interpretation based on the examiner drawing an arbitrary box around certain components in the prior art and labeling that box with the name of the claim element at...