Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Use of Dictionaries to Construe Patent Claims: Potential for Clarification from the Federal Circuit
The U.S. patent system grants patentees the right to exclude others from practicing a patented invention, which is defined by a patent's claims. As such, the patent statute requires that patent claims be clear and definite. The policy underlying this requirement is to ensure that competitors are provided with fair notice as to the scope of the claimed invention.
In 1982, Congress created and transferred exclusive appellate jurisdiction over patent cases to the Federal Circuit with the hope that a single appellate court reviewing patent litigation would lead to a unified body of patent law. However, patent litigation remains unpredictable, due in part to the uncertainties involved in the process of interpreting patent claims. In the past 10 years, the Federal Circuit has attempted to establish clarity and uniformity in claim construction. According to practitioners and judges, the Federal Circuit's attempts have been met with limited success and potentially additional confusion. As such, claim construction under the current patent system remains unpredictable, as the Federal Circuit often reverses or modifies district courts' claim construction rulings.
However, relief might be in sight. In Phillips v. AWH Corp., 363 F.3d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2004), the Federal Circuit ordered an en banc rehearing of the issues concerning the construction of patent claims, including when construing courts should look to dictionaries for construction.
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?