Filewrapper® | A patent, trademark, and copyright law blog - Claim differentiation

Federal Circuit reverses claim construction and noninfringement finding

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 15:25:00-0500

In a claim construction appeal, the Federal Circuit found that the doctrine of claim differentiation, combined with statements made in a petition to make special, led to a broader claim construction than that offered by the district court. Also, there was no unequivocal disclaimer of the broader claim scope during prosecution of either the patent-in-suit or its parent application, as found by the district court. As a result, the district court's claim construction and associated summary judgment of noninfringement were reversed.

More detail of Saunders Group, Inc. v. Comfortrac, Inc. after the jump.

[More]

Federal Circuit addresses claim construction, on-sale and public use bars, and DJ jurisdiction

Sat, 26 May 2007 13:48:00-0500

In a decision Friday, the Federal Circuit vacated in part a district court's claim construction of a several terms as well as its decision to find no infringement of patents owned by Honeywell. The court did, however, affirm the district court's retention of jurisdiction over the several withdrawn claims and the decision that Honeywell's pre-critical date activities were not barring sales or public uses under § 102(b).

More details of Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp. after the jump.

[More]

Federal Circuit Puts the Brakes on District Court's Claim Construction

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 09:05:00-0500

The Federal Circuit today issued a fairly routine claim construction decision, vacating part of the district court's claim construction and remanding. The Court also affirmed the district court's decision to deny Rule 11 sanctions (applying Ninth Circuit law).

More details of the case after the jump.

[More]

Federal Circuit Addresses Claim Differentiation

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:45:00-0500

The Federal Circuit further clarified the doctrine of claim differentiation in Anderson Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC. Andersen Corp. owns a number of patent relating to composite materials made from a mixture of polymer and wood fiber as well as patents that relate to structural parts made from those composite materials. Fiber Composites manufactures and sells deck railing and spindle products under the trade name Fiberon®. Andersen Corp. brought action against Fiber Composites in the District of Minnesota alleging that the Fiberon® products infringed six of Andersen Corp.'s patents. While discussing the case, the Federal Circuit took the opportunity to address the doctrine of claim differentiation. Claim differentiation is the doctrine based on the common sense notion that different words or phrases used in separate claims are presumed to indicate that the claims have different meanings and scope. To the extent that the absence of such difference in meaning and scope would make a claim superfluous, the doctrine of claim differentiation states the presumption that the difference between claims is significant. The presumption of difference can be refuted though by the written description and the prosecution history of a patent. The doctrine of claim differentiation can not broaden claims beyond their correct scope, determined in light of the specification and the prosecution history and any relevant extrinsic evidence. Claims that are written in different words may ultimately cover substantially the same subject matter. To read the full decision in Anderson Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, click here.