Claim Interpretation
description
Transcript of Claim Interpretation
![Page 1: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Claim Interpretation
Intro to IP – Prof Merges
2.1.10
![Page 2: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Two Main Topics
• Claim interpretation methodology
• What is at stake in claim interpretation issues?
![Page 3: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Rotating handle at end of bar
Cutting elementattached to bar
Base, withpassageway
U-shapedbarClaimed
Invention
“AccusedDevice II”
“AccusedDevice I”
NOT INFRINGING
INFRINGING
Material Elements
Determining Literal Infringement
![Page 4: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Phillips
• Background – Federal Circuit developments
• Repurcussions
![Page 5: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
![Page 6: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
![Page 7: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
![Page 8: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
![Page 9: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Primary elements1. Outer shell, two steel plate sections
2. Sealing means to prevent steel-to-steel contact
3. Load-bearing steel baffles extending inwardly from steel shell walls
![Page 10: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Intrinsic vs extrinsic evidenceAlthough we have emphasized the
importance of intrinsic evidence in claim construction, we have also authorized district courts to rely on extrinsic evidence, which “consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Markman, 52 F.3d at 980.
![Page 11: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Intrinsic --------- Extrinsic• Claim language
• Specification
• Prosecution History
– Papers generated during prosecution
• Dictionaries
• Expert witness testimony
![Page 12: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Plain meaning rule
We have frequently stated that the words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Vitronics . . . .
![Page 13: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
The Texas Digital approach• Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v.
Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
• Dictionaries and treatises uber alles!
• Consult BEFORE reading the spec for guidance
![Page 14: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Texas Digital• Why?
• To prevent “reading in a limitation from the specification”
• Claim first and foremost
![Page 15: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Dictionary first: broad claim scope
• Competing definitions/dictionaries
• Not tied to spec
![Page 16: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Phillips holding[T]he methodology [Texas Digital]
adopted placed too much reliance on extrinsic sources such as dictionaries, treatises, and encyclopedias and too little on intrinsic sources, in particular the specification and prosecution history. – p 275-76
![Page 17: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Phillips holding (cont’d)[T]here will still remain some cases in
which it will be hard to determine whether a person of skill in the art would understand the embodiments to define the outer limits of the claim term or merely to be exemplary in nature. While that task may present difficulties in some cases, we nonetheless believe that --
![Page 18: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Must analyze entire specification
[A]ttempting to resolve that problem in the context of the particular patent is likely to capture the scope of the actual invention more accurately than either strictly limiting the scope of the claims to the embodiments disclosed in the specification or divorcing the claim language from the specification.
![Page 19: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Claims PatentSpecificationrelationship
“Much of the time, upon reading the specification [from the perspective of a PHOSITA], it will become clear whether the patentee is setting out specific examples of the invention to [teach how to make and use the invention], or whether the patentee instead intends for the claims and the embodiments in the specification to be strictly coextensive. The manner in which the patentee uses a term within the specification and claims usually will make the distinction apparent.”
“There is sometimes a fine line between reading a claim in light of the specification, and reading a limitation into the claim from the specification.”
![Page 20: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Conclusion
• not about procedure or what evidence may be considered
• highly contextual• subject to de novo review
“[T]here is no magic formula”
Extrinsic sources may not be “used to contradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence”
“what matters is for the court to attach the appropriate weight to be assigned to those sources in light of the statutes and policies that inform patent law”
![Page 21: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
• Prosecution History
Original Claims
DrawingsPatent
Specification
File
Wrapper
Claim Construction:Weighing Sources
Patent
![Page 22: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
P. 277: claim differentiation“[D]ependent claim 2 states that the baffles may be
‘oriented with the panel sections disposed at angles for deflecting projectiles such as bullets able to penetrate the steel plates.’ The inclusion of such a specific limitation on the term‘baffles’ in claim 2 makes it likely that the patentee did not contemplate that the term ‘baffles’ already contained that limitation.”
![Page 23: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Expression unius . . .
• Expression unius est exclusio alterius
• To express one is to exclude the other
• Definition of X implicitly excludes Y
![Page 24: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Other issues
• Statement of purpose
– Multiple purposes here . . .
• Examples in specification
– May reveal restrictive meaning; or may not; here – not.
![Page 25: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
[W]e conclude that a person of skill in the art would not interpret the disclosure and claims of the ’798 patent to mean that a structure extending inward from one of the wall faces is a ‘baffle’ if it is at an acute or obtuse angle, but is not a ‘baffle’ if it is disposed at a right angle. – p. 279
![Page 26: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Tank “therein”
TTMP GunFrom Larami Corp. v. Amron; casebook p. 229
BCLT/FJC © 1999 Menell/Merges
Larami Corp. v. AmronThe CLAIM is the thing . . .
![Page 27: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Tank “thereon”
BCLT/FJC © 1999 Menell/Merges
Larami “Super Soaker”
![Page 28: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Claim language maps to “shelf space”
I claim –
1. “. . . Said body having a tank therein for storing said water . . .”
Patentee’s Exclusive market space Larami’s
competing product – external tank
![Page 29: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Equivalents/Literal Claim Scope
Literal ClaimScope
Range ofEquivalents
![Page 30: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Hughes Satellite – p. 275-78
![Page 31: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States, 717 F.2d. 1351, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
• Later developed technology to use onboard computers to control satellite orientation is equivalent to receive signals form the satellite and use the computers on earth to control the orientation of the satellite)
![Page 32: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Hughes VIII 1998
• Because Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States , 717 F.2d 1351, 219 USPQ 473 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ( Hughes VII ) satisfies the legal requirements announced in Warner-Jenkinson , we affirm.
![Page 33: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
![Page 34: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
![Page 35: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
![Page 36: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
S/E
S/E
![Page 37: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
S/E
![Page 38: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Literal Infringement
S/E
Doctrine of Equivalents
Patent
•f “means disposed . . . for receiving . . . signals•g “said valve being coupled to said last-named means and responsive ...
ClaimElements
?
![Page 39: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Literal InfringementDoctrine of Equivalents
PioneeringInventions
ModestInventions
Patent
•f “means disposed . . . for receiving . . . signals•g “said valve being coupled to said last-named means and responsive ...
ClaimElements
![Page 40: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Prosecution History Estoppel
• Festo v. SKK Kabushiki, p. 279
![Page 41: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
![Page 42: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
![Page 43: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
![Page 44: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
![Page 45: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Original Claim Scope
![Page 46: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Original Claim Scope
Narrowed Scope, after amend-ment
![Page 47: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Accused product: ultra-purifica-tion at 9.5 pH
No Infringement under DOE
X
![Page 48: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Accused Product: pH of 5.0 – can Hilton-Davis assert infringement under DOE?
??
![Page 49: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
• United States Patent 4,354,125 Stoll October 12, 1982 Magnetically coupled arrangement for a driving and a driven member
The invention is concerned with a magnetically coupled arrangement for a driving and a driven member, which arrangement is operable by a pressure medium and is used in a conveying system. A slidable piston (16) within a tube (10) has an arrangement of annular magnets (20) provided at each end with sealing and sliding members (24, 26). A driven assembly (18) slidable on the outer surface of the tube (10) has an arrangement of annular magnets (32) corresponding to the magnets (20) and provided at each end with a sliding ring (44). The members (24, 26, 44) prevent ingress of foreign bodies to the magnet locations, and consequently enable the spacing between the magnets and the tube (10) to be very small. A good magnetic coupling is achieved resulting in effective transmission of power. Several pistons (16) abutting one another can be used for conveying heavy loads.
Inventors: Stoll; Kurt (Lenzhalde 72, D-7300 Esslingen, DE) Appl. No.: 153999Filed: May 28, 1980
![Page 50: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
![Page 51: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
![Page 52: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
![Page 53: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Amendments
• Two patents –
–Stoll, 4,354,125
–Carroll, 3,779,401
![Page 54: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Prosecution History
• Amendments
• What limitations did patentee add during prosecution?
• Why were they made?
![Page 55: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
How amended?
• Claims changed to include a new limitation: piston assembly must now include a pair of sealing rings
![Page 56: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Equivalents and Prosecution History
• P. 283
• “Insubstantial alterations”
• BUT: Cannot “recapture” an insusbtantial alteration GIVEN UP during prosecution
![Page 57: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
1st point: “related to patentability”
• Claim amendment for any reason can give rise to estoppel
• Not just prior art-related reasons
![Page 58: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Presumption arising from claim amendments
• P. 287
![Page 59: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
2nd Point: The 3-Part Test
• Supreme Court rejects “complete bar”
• Federal Circuit’s new rule reversed and thrown out
![Page 60: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Original Claim Scope
![Page 61: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
Original Claim Scope
Narrowed Scope, after amend-ment
![Page 62: Claim Interpretation](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062301/56815c2e550346895dca0ff3/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
2nd Point: The 3-Part Test
• P 287
• [1] Unforeseeable equivalents
• [2] Amendment bears “tangential relation” to equivalent
• [3] “Some other reason” -- ?