Separate claim terms will be generally construed as separate limitations. Here, for example, an “auction” for the sale of one “item” was found to still encompass multi-sale auctions because the claims did not explicitly equate the two terms as being synonymous.
Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here relates to automated proxy bidding in online “auctions.” The claims contain several limitations referring to an “auction,” including that “the highest bid in the auction is not from the bidder,” but remain indifferent to the number of sales involved in the “auction.” Both parties and the district court agree that the plain meaning of “auction” involves any number of sales. However, the parties also agreed to construe “the highest bid in the auction is not from the bidder” as “the highest offer received for the item is not from the bidder.”
Issue(s): Whether the stipulated construction limited the term “auction” to one-sale auctions and excluded multi-sale auctions.
Holding(s): No. “[C]ontrary to the Defendants’ contentions, ‘auction’ and item are not equivalent terms. The agreed upon construction of ‘the highest bid in the auction’ merely underscores that the claimed method works on an item-by-item basis; it does not limit the claimed method to auctions involving only one sale.” That is, “[w]hile the ‘auction’ may sell just one item in a single sale, a construction that forecloses the more clearly contemplated multi-sale ‘auction’ improperly restricts the scope of the claimed invention.”