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...

TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIV. v. SYMANTEC CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Inconsistent terminology may render claims indefinite when the claims rely on a minority interpretation

by Steve Driskill | Feb 2, 2016 | [sub] consistency, Claim Interpretation

Inconsistent terminology in the specification may render claims indefinite when the claims rely on a minority interpretation. Here, for example, because the claimed “byte sequence feature” is predominantly described in the specification as referring to the machine...

SOCIEDAD ESPANOLA v. BLUE RIDGE X-RAY COMPANY (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Ambiguous claims terms will be generally interpreted consistent with the focus of the specification

by Steve Driskill | Jul 31, 2015 | [sub] consistency, Claim Interpretation

Ambiguous claims terms will be generally interpreted consistent with the focus of the specification. Here, for example, the claimed “two insulated chambers” were found to require no more than mere electrical insulation based on the patent’s overall focus on electrical...

IN RE MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Terms used coextensively in the specification may be treated as synonymous

by Steve Driskill | May 7, 2015 | [sub] consistency, Claim Interpretation

Treating two terms coextensively in the specification leads to an inference that they are related and largely synonymous. Here, for example, a “positional” relationship as in the prior art was found to be equivalent to the claimed indication of a “distance” because...

PAPST LICENSING v. FUJIFILM CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – A claim term’s interpretation should not be irrelevant to the invention’s advance over the prior art

by Steve Driskill | Feb 2, 2015 | [sub] consistency, Claim Interpretation

It is generally improper to impose requirements on claim terms that are foreign to what the specification describes as the invention’s relevant advance over the prior art. Here, for example, it was found to be improper to require the claimed “virtual” files to be...

TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO. v. ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS USA (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Numerical value flexibility is not inherent

by Steve Driskill | Feb 20, 2014 | [sub] consistency, Claim Interpretation

There is no universally accepted or standard level of imprecision afforded to numerical values in claims. Any desired flexibility in numerical values should be expressly recited (e.g., using the term “about”) and supported in the description. Ultimately, “[t]he...