INDACON, INC. v. FACEBOOK, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Claim differentiation does not apply where the claims are not otherwise identical in scope

by | Jun 6, 2016 | [sub] claim differentiation, Claim Interpretation

The doctrine of claim differentiation does not apply where the claims are not otherwise identical in scope. Here, for example, while certain claims clearly distinguished between “instances” of text strings and “all instances” of the text strings, the claimed invention...

STRYKER CORPORATION v. ZIMMER, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Claim differentiation may serve to enforce a broader meaning than the disclosed embodiments

by | Dec 19, 2014 | [sub] claim differentiation, Claim Interpretation

The doctrine of claim differentiation may serve to enforce a broader meaning of certain claim limitations than those embodiments specifically disclosed in the specification. Here, for example, a “handpiece” design consistently described in the specification as “having...

DATATERN, INC. v. EPICOR SOFTWARE CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Claim differentiation may be used to demonstrate drafting intent regarding included and omitted features

by | Dec 19, 2014 | [sub] claim differentiation, Claim Interpretation

Claim differentiation may be used to demonstrate drafting intent with regard to included and omitted features. Here, for example, the claimed operation of “creating” an object instance was found to require only instantiating that object rather than also generating the...

ROZBICKI v. CHIANG (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Claim differentiation presumptively bars interpretation if defining characteristics are in dependent claims

by | Nov 14, 2014 | [sub] claim differentiation, Claim Interpretation

Claim differentiation presumptively bars a narrowing claim interpretation when its defining characteristics are recited in the dependent claims, even when the interpretation itself may not be literally recited there. Here, for example, the claimed “etching” step was...