Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.
An element of a preamble is limiting when the element is recited in the body of the claim or the body of a claim dependent therefrom.
Results for claim interpretation
view Case Detail
Download PDF
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc.
Based on intrinsic evidence, the Federal Circuit affirms a district court claim construction decision in which the conjunction “and” is used to express mutually exclusive alternatives. Additionally, in view of evidence of unpredictability among alternative formulations, unexpected results, and objective indicia of nonobviousness, the Federal Circuit affirms the lower court finding of nonobviousness of a claimed compound.
O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.
A district court must construe all disputed claim terms when the meaning of the terms affects the scope of the claims. The doctrine of equivalents does not apply if the objectively apparent reason for a narrowing amendment is not tangential to an alleged equivalent as indicated by clear claim language.
On Demand Machine Corp. v. Ingram Industries, Inc.
This case raises the prospect of joint infringement when separate companies work together to perform all the steps of a claim of a patent. The Federal Circuit posits that this joint infringement may occur even if no single company performs all the steps of a patent claim.
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Abbott Laboratories
A specific definition contained in a patent, as intrinsic evidence of the meaning of a claim term, is strong evidence for claim interpretation, particularly in application of the doctrine of equivalents.
In re Alappat
If an algorithm can be claimed so as to be a machine claim then it is patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The conversion of data into another form of data is patentable if embodied in a machine to carry out this task.
Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex International, Inc.
Use of term “first pivot point” in claims for exercise apparatus is not expression of location, since claims include extension arms, and use of terms “first pivot point” and “second pivot point” distinguishes pivot point on “first extension arm” from that on “second extension arm” without suggesting where on extension arm pivot points are located.
Gaus v. Conair Corp.
Patentee may not utilize the doctrine of equivalents to increase claim scope to include subject matter either expressly or impliedly excluded by the patent itself.
Minton v. National Association of Securities Dealers Inc.
Infringement plaintiff’s lease of computer program and telecommunications network to brokerage firm constituted “sale,” within meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), for purposes of assessing validity of plaintiff’s patent for interactive securities trading systems since plaintiff conveyed fully operational computer program implementing claimed method.