INTERTAINER, INC. v. HULU, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – A functionally-described element “adapted to” perform multiple functions does not exclude multiple elements

by | Sep 26, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

A functionally-described element “adapted to” perform a plurality of functions does not exclude multiple elements performing those functions when no structural limitations are recited. Here, for example, a “link program” adapted to “both … interrupt streaming of the...

PROFECTUS TECHNOLOGY LLC v. HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Claim language that “is tailored to, characterizes, and delimits” a claim element is intrinsic requirement

by | May 26, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

Claim language that “is tailored to, characterizes, and delimits” a claim element may be interpreted as an intrinsic requirement of that element rather than expressing a mere possibility. Here, for example, specifying that the claimed picture frame / display is...

PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP. v. PERMOBIL, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – A geometric orientation should be interpreted relative to an appropriate geometric reference

by | Apr 5, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

A geometric orientation should be interpreted relative to an appropriate geometric reference rather than an object as a whole. Here, for example, a “perpendicular” orientation of a substantially planar mounting plate relative to a drive-wheel axis was found to require...

TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNAT v. SUNGARD DATA (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – Claim terms concerning change over time such as “static” may be interpreted as persisting indefinitely

by | Apr 4, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

Claim terms concerning change over time such as “static” may be interpreted as persisting indefinitely. Here, for example, a “static” display that was updated only manually was found to be not infringed by an automatically updating display even though the updating...

DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT INC. v. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – A method step “forming” a given element may exclude from that element any features requiring other steps

by | Mar 22, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

A method step recited as resulting in the “formation” of a given element may be interpreted as excluding from that element any features requiring additional steps. Here, for example, the claimed “patterning” of an imaging layer “to form a first patterned layer” was...

IN RE VARMA (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – The indefinite article “a” cannot serve to negate an otherwise clear relationship among claim elements

by | Mar 10, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

The indefinite article “a” cannot serve to negate a relationship among claim elements that is otherwise made clear by context. Here, for example, the claimed “a statistical analysis request corresponding to two or more selected investments” was found to require that a...