Archive | Patent Claim Interpretation

CAFC Rejects Construction of “Controller” in Patent Claim

In a de novo review of claim construction, the Federal Circuit rejected the District Court’s (ILND) claim construction of the patent claim term “controller” in The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co. LTD (Fed. Cir. 2017). The District Court had granted the plaintiff-appellee’s motion for a preliminary injunction.  The Federal Circuit disagreed with the District […]

Continue Reading

PTAB Broadest Reasonable Interpretation: “in response to” Means “subsequent to”

In an ex parte appeal, the PTAB upheld the Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation of the patent claim language “in response to” as merely meaning “subsequent to.”  The decision is Ex parte Youngri Kim et al. (PTAB Jan 19, 2017). The subject patent application is drawn toward an ebook reader, and the claim language at issue […]

Continue Reading

PTAB Construes Patent Claim Terms as Subject to §112 ¶6 in IPR

The USPTO’s PTAB held that the term “drive module” was a means-plus-function limitation subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (now 112(f))  in its decision to institute an Inter Partes Review (IPR) in Apple Inc., v. Immersion Corporation, IPR2016-01372 (January 11, 2017). The PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) raised the §112(6) issue sua […]

Continue Reading

Incorporation by Reference Saves Patent-Eligibility

A continuation-in-part patent application incorporated its parent by reference; now a court has relied on subject matter disclosed in the parent’s specification to support a finding that claims of the child patent were patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Finjan Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems Inc., No. 5-15-cv-03295 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2016).  Accordingly, the […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes