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 | 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...

CAMBRIAN SCIENCE CORPORATION v. COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – The definition of a claim term in the specification is controlling over broader extrinsic evidence

by | Jun 29, 2015 | [sub] extrinsic evidence, Claim Interpretation

The definition of a claim term in the specification is controlling over extrinsic evidence even when that evidence points to a broader understanding of the plain meaning of the term in the art. Here, for example, an “active” waveguide coupler was found to be clearly...

CEPHALON, INC. v. ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – A definition need only be widely rather than universally accepted to form the basis for claim construction

by | Jun 17, 2015 | [sub] extrinsic evidence, Claim Interpretation

A definition need only be widely accepted rather than universally accepted to form a proper basis for claim construction. Here, for example, although the patentee noted that the definition of the claimed “nanoparticles” and “microparticles” as being between 1 to 1000...

KANEKA CORPORATION v. XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Lack of word-for-word alignment of specification and claims does not require use of extrinsic evidence

by | Jun 10, 2015 | [sub] extrinsic evidence, Claim Interpretation

Word-for-word alignment of the specification with the claim language is unnecessary for the appropriate meaning of a claim term to be ascertained from the intrinsic record. Here, for example, although the term “sealed” tank was added to the claims during prosecution...

BELDEN INC. v. BERK-TEK LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Dictionary definitions provide an adequate starting point when the specification does not recite a claim term

by | Apr 17, 2015 | [sub] extrinsic evidence, Claim Interpretation

Dictionary definitions provide an adequate starting point when the specification does not recite a claim term. Here, for example, the claim term “channel” was found to be adequately characterized by its dictionary definition of “a long gutter, groove, or furrow”...

TRISTRATA, INC. v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – A borrowed term of analogy rather than a true term of art does not have a plain and ordinary meaning

by | Dec 4, 2014 | [sub] extrinsic evidence, Claim Interpretation

A borrowed term of analogy rather than a true term of art is not sufficient to establish a plain and ordinary meaning to one skilled in the particular field to which the application pertains. Here, for example, a “seal” described parenthetically for use in the field...