COGNEX CORPORATION v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2013) (NP) – “Each” element of a plurality

by Steve Driskill | Dec 16, 2013 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation

While caution should be taken to not read too much into this non-precedential opinion, especially since this line of argument was not specifically addressed, it is troubling to see another “plurality” of elements being read on all of the elements of the accused...

BROADCOM CORPORATION v. EMULEX CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – “Corresponding to” does not mean “equal to”

by Steve Driskill | Oct 7, 2013 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation

While the specification here contained specific statements that the elements recited as “corresponding to” one another need not necessarily be equal, the court made clear that even the plain meaning of “corresponding to” does not mean “equal to.” According to the...

CHEESE SYSTEMS, INC. v. TETRA PAK CHEESE (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – Terms of orientation

by Steve Driskill | Aug 6, 2013 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation

While terms of orientation (e.g., horizontal vs. vertical, up vs. down) provide more fodder for opposing argument than is probably desired, the Federal Circuit has been fairly lenient on the patentee in its loose interpretation of these terms. Background / Facts: The...

DOUGLAS DYNAMICS v. BUYERS PRODUCTS COMPANY (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – “Connected to”

by Steve Driskill | May 21, 2013 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation

Unless the claim context or specification explicitly counsels otherwise, the term “connected to” ordinarily encompasses indirect linkages as well as direct linkages. Background / Facts: The patent here is directed to a snowplow assembly that can be conveniently...

IN RE SCOTT SCHREER (Fed. Cir. 2013) (NP) – “Public” broadcast

by Steve Driskill | May 21, 2013 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation

While a non-precedential opinion and a fairly fact specific inquiry, the main takeaway here is that a “public” action does not preclude certain actions simply because they may require users to pay a fee or be first authorized in order to participate. Background /...

CEATS, INC. v. CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2013) (NP) – A “set”

by Steve Driskill | Apr 26, 2013 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation

Although somewhat context specific, the term “set” generally refers to a collection of one or more than one items; it is not synonymous with a “plurality” of items and does not necessarily require that more than one item make up the set. If you intend for the term...