claim interpretation
DESCRIPTION
Claim Interpretation. Intro to IP – Prof Merges 1.29.09. Determining Literal Infringement. “Accused Device I”. “Accused Device II”. Material Elements. Rotating handle at end of bar. Cutting element attached to bar. Base, with passageway. U-shaped bar. Claimed Invention. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Claim Interpretation
Intro to IP – Prof Merges
1.29.09
![Page 2: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/2.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 3: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Phillips
• Background – Federal Circuit developments
• Repurcussions
![Page 4: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
![Page 5: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
![Page 6: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
![Page 7: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
![Page 8: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/8.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 9: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Section 112 Par 6
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
![Page 10: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Old rule/Fed Cir rule• From “magic words” (“means for . . .”)
• To “does claim recite structure”? Test – if so, even with words “means for,” it is NOT a 112 par. 6 “means plus function” claim
![Page 11: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/11.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 12: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Intrinsic --------- Extrinsic• Claim language
• Specification
• Prosecution History
– Papers generated during prosecution
• Dictionaries
• Expert witness testimony
![Page 13: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Plain meaning rule
We have frequently stated that the words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Vitronics . . . .
![Page 14: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/14.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 15: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Texas Digital• Why?
• To prevent “reading in a limitation from the specification”
• Claim first and foremost
![Page 16: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Dictionary first: broad claim scope
• Competing definitions/dictionaries
• Not tied to spec
![Page 17: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/17.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. -- 795
![Page 18: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/18.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 19: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/19.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 20: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/20.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 21: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/21.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 22: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
• Prosecution History
Original Claims
DrawingsPatent
Specification
File
Wrapper
Claim Construction:Weighing Sources
Patent
![Page 23: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/23.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 24: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Tank “thereon”
BCLT/FJC © 1999 Menell/Merges
Larami “Super Soaker”
![Page 25: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/25.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 26: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Equivalents/Literal Claim Scope
Literal ClaimScope
Range ofEquivalents
![Page 27: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Hughes Satellite – p. 275-78
![Page 28: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/28.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 29: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/29.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 30: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
![Page 31: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
![Page 32: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
![Page 33: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
S/E
S/E
![Page 34: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
S/E
![Page 35: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/35.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 36: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/36.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 37: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Prosecution History Estoppel
• Festo v. SKK Kabushiki, p. 279
![Page 38: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
![Page 39: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
![Page 40: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
![Page 41: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
![Page 42: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Original Claim Scope
![Page 43: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Original Claim Scope
Narrowed Scope, after amend-ment
![Page 44: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Accused product: ultra-purifica-tion at 9.5 pH
No Infringement under DOE
X
![Page 45: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Accused Product: pH of 5.0 – can Hilton-Davis assert infringement under DOE?
??
![Page 46: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/46.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 47: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
![Page 48: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
![Page 49: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
![Page 50: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Amendments
• Two patents –
–Stoll, 4,354,125
–Carroll, 3,779,401
![Page 51: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Prosecution History
• Amendments
• What limitations did patentee add during prosecution?
• Why were they made?
![Page 52: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
How amended?
• Claims changed to include a new limitation: piston assembly must now include a pair of sealing rings
![Page 53: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Equivalents and Prosecution History
• P. 283
• “Insubstantial alterations”
• BUT: Cannot “recapture” an insusbtantial alteration GIVEN UP during prosecution
![Page 54: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
1st point: “related to patentability”
• Claim amendment for any reason can give rise to estoppel
• Not just prior art-related reasons
![Page 55: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Presumption arising from claim amendments
• P. 287
![Page 56: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
2nd Point: The 3-Part Test
• Supreme Court rejects “complete bar”
• Federal Circuit’s new rule reversed and thrown out
![Page 57: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Original Claim Scope
![Page 58: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Original Claim Scope
Narrowed Scope, after amend-ment
![Page 59: Claim Interpretation](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56815ce2550346895dcae6a8/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
2nd Point: The 3-Part Test
• P 287
• [1] Unforeseeable equivalents
• [2] Amendment bears “tangential relation” to equivalent
• [3] “Some other reason” -- ?