Blog
These articles are for informational purposes, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. These articles are only the opinion of the authors and are not attributable to Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C., or the firm’s clients.
IN RE HOLNESS (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – A claim term may be given its plain meaning when the specification does not limit its form or structure
A claim term may be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with its plain meaning when the specification does not place any restriction on its form or structure. Here, for example, a “timer” was found to encompass gears in the prior art that control a...
APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – The term “substantially” does not necessarily require an objective standard of measure
The term “substantially” does not necessarily require an objective standard of measure as long as the claim scope is reasonably certain. Here, for example, a user interface feature in which double tapping a displayed document causes it to be enlarged and...
AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Direct infringement under § 271(a) does not incorporate joint tortfeasor liability
Absent a principal-agent relationship, a contractual arrangement, or a joint enterprise, direct infringement under § 271(a) does not incorporate joint tortfeasor liability. Here, for example, although the accused infringer maintained servers that performed part of the...
ARCELORMITTAL FRANCE v. AK STEEL CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Reissue amendments may be deemed impermissibly broadening in view of prior litigation claim construction
Amendments during reissue may be deemed broadening and thereby render a patent unenforceable if they broaden a previous and controlling claim construction from prior litigation even if the PTO’s broadest reasonable interpretation may perceive them as narrowing. Here,...
TADAYON v. SAUCON TECHNOLOGIES (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Undefined limitations may be interpreted as broadly as their literal recitations permit
Undefined limitations may be interpreted as broadly as their literal recitations permit. Here, for example, a frequency for “low radiation power absorption” was found to be broad enough to encompass any frequency that can be used in any manner to provide a lower dose...
IN RE MAGNA ELECTRONICS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Terms used coextensively in the specification may be treated as synonymous
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...
ASTRAZENECA LP v. BREATH LIMITED (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Mere regulatory compliance cannot be used to establish a nexus with commercial success
A claimed feature associated with mere regulatory compliance cannot be used to establish the secondary consideration of commercial success for the purposes of rebutting an otherwise prima facie case of obviousness. Here, for example, the claimed “sterility” of a...
EON CORP. IP HOLDINGS LLC v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – The Katz exception to the algorithm rule does not extend to complicated, customized computer software
The Katz exception to the algorithm rule permitting general-purpose processors to serve as the corresponding structure of computer-implemented means-plus-function elements for basic functions of a processor does not extend to complicated, customized computer software....
BIOSIG INSTRUMENTS, INC. v. NAUTILUS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Terms of degree are not indefinite when their bounds can be inferred from operational requirements
Claim language employing terms of degree is not indefinite when its bounds can be inferred from inherent parameters related to proper operation. Here, for example, a “spaced relationship” between two electrodes was found to be sufficiently definite because the spacing...
INFO-HOLD, INC. v. MUZAK LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Claims shall not be construed so as to read any recited term out of the patent
Claims shall not be construed so as to read any recited term out of the patent. Here, for example, actions occurring “when” a caller is “placed on hold” were found to be limited to the moment the caller is placed on hold, rather than at any point during the period the...