A Blog About Intellectual Property Litigation and the District of Delaware


Entries for tag: Claim Construction

What You Say in Prosecution Can Be Used Against You, Even if the Examiner Disagrees

Jeff Castellano, Dec. 21, 2021
Claim Construction

In a recent order, issued shortly after the Markman hearing in Allergan USA, Inc. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., C.A. No. 19-1727-RGA, Judge Andrews addressed the question of "how much weight should be assigned to a Patent Examiner's statement, in a Notice of Allowance, about the meaning of a claim."

He explained the background as follows:

During prosecution of the '291 Patent, Plaintiffs initially argued that the claimed percentage of mannitol, a well-known filler, should be calculated separately from the claimed percentage of filler. The Examiner disagreed, and, in his Notice of Allowance, indicated that the percentage of mannitol would be included in calculating the percentage of filler.

(emphasis added)

The plaintiffs/patentees urged the Court to ignore their initial statements and arguments, and instead adopt the Examiner's position. Judge Andrews declined to do so...

View

Court Denies Stipulated Five-Month Adjustment to Patent Case Schedule, Requires Parties to Proceed with Multiple Alternative Constructions

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 20, 2021
Stipulation Claim Construction

robert-anasch-ZFYg5jTvB4A-unsplash
Robert Anasch, Unsplash

As we've discussed at length, judges in the District of Delaware will usually let parties stipulate to reasonable adjustments to the case schedule, within certain limitations (including that stipulating to change the dispositive motion deadline may in some instances lead to the loss of the parties' trial date).

So it's always interesting to see when a stipulation is denied. In Osteoplastics, LLC v. Conformis, Inc., C.A. No. 20-405-MN-JLH (D. Del.), just before the close of fact discovery, the parties stipulated to a roughly 5 month delay in the remainder of the case. As the parties explain in the stip, the purpose of the delay is to provide the Court time to rule …

View

What Is "Plain and Ordinary Meaning," Anyway? And Why Do Plaintiffs Want It?

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 1, 2021
KB Plain Meaning

We mentioned earlier this week that "plain and ordinary meaning" (sometimes shortened as "plain meaning" or "ordinary meaning") is the default in claim construction. But what is it?

As the Federal Circuit has said, plain and ordinary meaning is the meaning of a phrase to a person of skill in the art:

The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application. . . . The inquiry into how a person of ordinary skill in the art understands a claim term provides an …
View

Chief Judge Connolly Cautions Plaintiffs on the Risks of "Plain and Ordinary Meaning" Constructions, Asks Local Counsel to "Get the Word Out"

Andrew E. Russell, Dec. 1, 2021
Plain Meaning Claim Construction

Caution
Scott Rodgerson, Unsplash

At a claim construction hearing earlier this month, Chief Judge Connolly noted some concerns with parties who offer "plain and ordinary meaning" constructions without explaining what that meaning is:

THE COURT: And going forward, Mr. Oakes, Mr. Russell, I am tempted to say the next time I get this situation [where] one side, the plaintiff[,] says, oh, plain and ordinary meaning and offers no alternative definition and all it does is criticize the defendant['s construction], which there's some actual[ly] support for, [then] I don't hold a hearing. I'm just going with the defendant. I was really tempted to do that in this case. So get the word out.

Volterra Semiconductor LLC v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 19-2240-CFC-SRF, at 22:22-23:7 (D. Del. Nov. 12, 2021) (transcript).

Chief Judge Connolly also pointed out a "new trend" of parties ...

View

Judge Noreika Orders Pre-Markman Final Contentions

Jeff Castellano, Nov. 23, 2021
Scheduling Orders Contentions

The practice of supplementing contentions after the Court issues a claim construction ruling has become commonplace in this District. For the litigants, this timing is generally advantageous because it permits final contentions to be drafted with the Court's claim construction ruling in hand, and does not require the development of alternative positions that take into account each side's claim construction positions.

On the other hand, because the Markman process (in particular the identification of the terms in dispute) often occurs months before final contentions are due, it is not unusual for final detailed contentions to result in additional claim construction disputes, which the Court must resolve long after the initial Markman process.

Judge Noreika recently issued oral orders in several cases specifically to address this timing...

View

Five Claims Across Four Patents Held Indefinite Because "Aesthetic" Is Subjective

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 22, 2021
Indefiniteness Claim Construction

"Moon flask with Aesthetic bird motif" The Met

Judge Stark today issued an opinion holding five claims across four patents indefinite, based on two terms: "aesthetic" and "similar to a light house." The Court held that both terms indefinite because they are subjective. As to "aesthetic," the Court rejected an argument that "aesthetic" merely differentiated between artistic and functional aspects of light:

The Court . . . agrees with [accused infringer] HeathCo that "aesthetic" is subjective and, accordingly, the claim term is indefinite. [Patentee] Vaxcel insists "aesthetic" is not subjective because it relates to the "philosophy" or "science" of "beauty and ugliness," not to whether something is pleasing or displeasing. . . . This is unpersuasive, in part …
View

When a "Means for" Claim Element Is Not a "Means-Plus-Function" Claim Element

Andrew E. Russell, Nov. 17, 2021
Means-Plus-Function § 112 ¶ 6

CIrcuit Board
Umberto, Unsplash

Most patent litigators are familiar with means-plus-function claims, which are defined by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (previously § 112 ¶ 6). They allow a patentee to write a claim limitation as a "means" or "step" for performing a function, which is performed by the corresponding structure (or material, or acts) within the specification.

Section 112 ¶ 6 can be a gold mine for accused infringers. If they successfully argue that a claim element falls under § 112 ¶ 6, they can then argue invalidity based on a lack of corresponding structure, or they can argue non-infringement if there is structure but their products lack any equivalent. Patentees usually don't want to construe their claims as § 112 …

View

Numerical Boundaries Not Required to Avoid Indefiniteness

Jeff Castellano, Nov. 9, 2021
Indefiniteness Claim Construction

In a recent claim construction ruling on a single claim term, Judge Andrews rejected an indefiniteness challenge based on the lack of "specific numerical boundaries" in the claim.

The technology at issue in Commscope Technologies LLC v. Rosenberger Site Solutions, LLC, C.A. No. 20-1053, involves antennas used in cell phone towers. The patent-in-suit is directed to solving the problem of distortion in multi-band antennas by "preventing the antenna elements intended to receive high bands from transmitting low band signals."

The defendants argued that the below claim language is indefinite...

View

Judge Noreika Orders Parties to Submit Joint Claim Chart, Denies Request for Early SJ

Jeff Castellano, Oct. 26, 2021
Early SJ Claim Construction

Leave to file early summary judgment is not often granted in this District. The circumstances in which the Court may permit early SJ are usually narrow: for example, where a question of law appears to be dispositive of the entire action, and/or where the moving party agrees to forego its ability to file a motion on the same grounds later.

It is safe to assume that openly violating the Court's scheduling order right before you ask to file an early motion for summary judgment of invalidity under Section 101 will not increase your chances of success.

Last week in Johnson Controls Technology Company v. BuildingIQ, Inc., C.A. No. 20-521-MN, Judge Noreika forcefully rejected the defendant's request to file such a motion just days after the defendant had stonewalled during the claim construction process, causing the parties to miss the to file the joint claim construction chart deadline.

After the deadline passed, the Court ordered that...

View

Judge Noreika Threatens Sanctions If Parties Don't Try to Agree on Claim Construction

Andrew E. Russell, Oct. 12, 2021
Meet-and-Confer Claim Construction

What I imagine claim construction arguments looked like
Immo Wegmann, Unsplash

Last week, Judge Noreika issued an interesting oral order regarding a claim construction dispute that was briefed—haphazardly, apparently—in the parties' summary judgment papers.

She criticized the briefing, ordered the parties to meet-and-confer and file ordinary claim construction briefing, and threatened sanctions if the parties don't try hard enough to reach agreement:

ORAL ORDER − In their summary judgment papers, the parties include arguments that either three or four additional claim terms must be construed by the Court. The parties' arguments are disjointed, do not focus on the intrinsic evidence and do not demonstrate any real understanding of what that other side's construction is. Thus, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, on or before 5:00 PM on …
View
Newer
Older

Archive