FENNER INVESTMENTS, LTD. v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Statements during prosecution are relevant to claim interpretation even when not relied on by the examiner

by | Feb 12, 2015 | [sub] prosecution history, Estoppel / Disclaimer

A patentee’s statements during prosecution, whether relied on by the examiner or not, are relevant to claim interpretation. Here, for example, statements on the record that a “personal identification number” distinguishes over the prior art by being user- rather than...

VEHICLE IP, LLC v. AT&T MOBILITY, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Permissive language such as “may be” indicates that a certain feature is broader than the context described

by | Nov 18, 2014 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

Permissive language such as “may be” indicates that a certain feature is broader than the context in which it is described. Here, for example, the specification stated that the claimed navigational way points “may be” used as intermediate points on the route, which...

AZURE NETWORKS, LLC v. CSR, PLC (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Cursory inconsistencies in terminology are not sufficient to redefine a well-established term of art

by | Nov 6, 2014 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

Cursory inconsistencies in terminology—although not ideal—are not a strong enough suggestion that the patentee intended to redefine a well-established term of art, especially when the limitation at issue is not the actual invention itself or an otherwise critical...

WORLD CLASS TECHNOLOGY CORP v. ORMCO CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Stated purpose of the invention may be used to construe ambiguous claim language

by | Oct 20, 2014 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

A stated purpose of the invention may be used to construe otherwise ambiguous claim language. Here, for example, an orthodontic device “support surface” was interpreted as being required to provide a particular type of support (during movement of a slide) in order to...

EMD MILLIPORE CORPORATION v. ALLPURE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Broadening amendments do not preclude prosecution history estoppel for other narrowing amendments

by | Sep 30, 2014 | [sub] prosecution history, Estoppel / Disclaimer

Broadening amendments in conjunction with narrowing amendments do not preclude the presumption that prosecution history estoppel applies. Here, for example, broadening a use requirement for a particular transfer member element did not preclude the presumption that...

FACEBOOK, INC. v. PRAGMATUS AV, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Descriptions of example features of claim language is not sufficient for lexicography or disavowal

by | Sep 11, 2014 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

In order to limit the otherwise plain meaning of the language of the claims, statements in the specification must particularly describe the language at issue. Merely describing related or exemplary features (e.g., “location information” in contrast to the claimed...