Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Interpreting Patent Claims: Patent Drafters Say What They Mean, But Do They Mean What They Say?
What exactly does it mean to interpret claims “in light” of the specification? Do the descriptions and examples in a patent specification affect the interpretation of the patent's claims where there is no express statement that a specialized definition is being given to claim terms? Absent a specific glossary section, is it even necessary to read the specification or should the public be free to read and interpret the claims in a vacuum? Within 4 days, two separate panels of the Federal Circuit delivered seemingly conflicting answers to these questions, highlighting a growing rift regarding the significance of the specification and prosecution history to claim interpretation.
Seemingly relegating the patent specification to second-class status, the panel in Housey Pharm., Inc. v. Astrazeneca UK Ltd., 364 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2004), began its analysis by stating that there is a “heavy presumption” that the language in a claim “carries its ordinary and customary meaning.” Based on the court's approach, this ordinary definition can be determined by looking in dictionaries. This panel stated that in order to overcome this “heavy presumption” that the dictionary definition is the controlling interpretation, the intrinsic evidence would have to “clearly disavow” the ordinary meaning. As the dissent put it, the majority categorized intrinsic evidence as an “also-ran” in claim construction.
In almost direct contrast, the panel in Vanderlande Indus. Nederland BV v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 366 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004), began its analysis by stating that the “intrinsic evidence is the most significant source of the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language.” Id. at 1318. Although it did not state that the specification of the patent at issue clearly set forth a special definition, the panel concluded that it was “doubtful whether any extrinsic evidence could contradict or overpower the meaning evident from the written description.” Id. at 1722.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?