Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Importance of Defining Novel Terms in Patenting Nanotechnology Inventions
Descriptive terminology is essential to providing effective patent protection for nanotechnology inventions, particularly from the perspective of future licensing and litigation activities. One of the key difficulties in patenting nanotech inventions, however, arises from the absence of established terminology. Failure to clearly define one's invention can lead to a number of unfortunate consequences, ranging from an overly narrow patent covering a limited scope of subject matter to a vague or overly broad patent susceptible to invalidation. This article will discuss: 1) recent decisions from the Federal Circuit that reveal how the use of descriptive terminology is essential to patenting nanotech inventions effectively, 2) how those decisions pose special problems for nanotech inventions, and 3) how those problems can be addressed through nanotech inventors acting as their own lexicographers and defining key terms in their patent specifications.
A number of recent decisions by the Federal Circuit have addressed the way in which courts should interpret the language of patent claims in determining their scope. Those decisions have emphasized that the language of the claims themselves should be the centerpiece of any analysis in determining the legal boundaries of the patented invention. Foremost among those decisions is Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193 (2002), in which the Federal Circuit stated that claim terms “bear a 'heavy presumption' that they mean what they say and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those words by persons skilled in the relevant art.” Id. at 1202.
Significantly, the court indicated that the “ordinary meaning” of claim terms should be ascertained by using dictionaries, encyclopedias, and treatises as the principal guides:
Dictionaries, encyclopedias, and treatises, publicly available at the time the patent is issued, are objective resources that serve as reliable sources of information on the established meanings that would have been attributed to the terms of the claims by those of skill in the art. … [T]hese materials may be the most meaningful sources of information to aid judges in better understanding both the technology and the terminology used by those skilled in the art to describe the technology. Id. at 1202-03 (emphasis added).
While maintaining its view that dictionaries and other references are key sources of information in determining the ordinary meaning of claim terms, the Federal Circuit has emphasized in both Texas Digital and subsequent decisions that “the intrinsic record [the claims, specification, and prosecution history] must always be consulted to identify which of the different possible dictionary meanings is most consistent with the use of the words by the inventor.” Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (emphasis added); see also Housey Pharm., Inc. v. AstraZeneca UK Ltd., 366 F.3d 1348, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
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?