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.
INFO-HOLD, INC. v. APPLIED MEDIA TECH. CORP. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Use of the term “preferred” implies that alternatives are contemplated
Use of the term “preferred” when describing example embodiments implies that alternatives are contemplated. Here, for example, the mention in the specification of a “preferred” receive-only manner of communication was found to imply the invention’s ability to operate...
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
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”...
INEOS USA LLC v. BERRY PLASTICS CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Establishing “criticality” of claimed range can avoid anticipation by broader, overlapping range
It is important to establish the “criticality” of a claimed range to the claimed invention in order to avoid anticipation by a prior art reference disclosing a broader, overlapping range. Here, for example, a lubricant claimed in the amount of 0.05 to 0.5% by weight...
IN RE 55 BRAKE LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Specifically reciting a member of a claimed “plurality” reduces the number of other members of the plurality
Specifically reciting a member of a claimed “plurality” reduces the number of other members of the plurality that need to be present to meet the claim limitation. Here, for example, reciting that “one of said plurality of sensors is a vehicle motion sensor” was found...
VASUDEVAN SOFTWARE, INC. v. TIBCO SOFTWARE, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Proper grammar is essential in both claim drafting and other statements relevant to claim interpretation
Proper grammar is essential in both claim drafting and other statements that may be used to construe the claims, such as arguments made during prosecution. Here, for example, the patentee argued during prosecution that “disparate” databases referred to an “absence of...
TMI PRODUCTS INC v. ROSEN ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEMS (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Even clear drafting intent cannot overcome an otherwise apparent meaning to a claim term
Even clear drafting intent cannot overcome an otherwise apparent meaning to a claim term. Here, for example, an entertainment system housing structured to permit “selective” access to a user was found to exclude embodiments that permitted constant access (e.g., an...
EXELA PHARMA SCIENCES, LLC v. LEE (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – PTO revival rulings are not subject to third party collateral challenge
PTO revival rulings are not subject to third party collateral challenge. Here, for example, the decision to revive a PCT national stage entry application for “unintentional” delay was found to be unreviewable by a third party challenger. Background / Facts: The patent...
IN RE BOOKSTAFF (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – The plain meaning of “Indicative” is to “serve to indicate” via “a sign, symptom, or index”
Absent a different usage made clear by the specification, the term “indicative” is a common word with a well-known meaning of “serving to indicate” via “a sign, symptom, or index.” Here, for example, “data that is indicative of a gratuity to be charged” in a financial...
KENNAMETAL, INC. v. INGERSOLL CUTTING TOOL COMPANY (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Prior art need not disclose actual performance of an otherwise anticipatory embodiment among various options
There is no requirement that the prior art disclose actual performance of an otherwise anticipatory embodiment among various contemplated embodiments in order to establish a prima facie case of anticipation. Here, for example, the prior art’s disclosure of 15...
CADENCE PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. EXELA PHARMA SCIENCES LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Equivalence infringement is not foreclosed simply by a literary “antithesis” of the claimed limitation
Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is not foreclosed simply by the claimed limitation being the literary “antithesis” of the accused infringer’s corresponding feature. Here, for example, no substantial difference was found between deoxygenating before or...