HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP. v. ZIMMER, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Boilerplate disclaimers purporting to limit the specification to preferred embodiments will be ineffective

by | May 12, 2016 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation

Boilerplate disclaimers characterizing all descriptions in the specification as being directed to preferred embodiments only will be ineffective at best, and may be problematic in establishing adequate written description support. Here, for example, statements that...

U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS v. ACER, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – There must be a nexus between the claim language and teachings purported to define the claimed invention

by | Apr 25, 2016 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation

There must generally be a nexus between the claim language and any teachings in the specification purported to define the claimed invention. Here, for example, the scope of the claimed “buffer memory” was found to be broader than the full-frame buffers described in...

EON CORP. IP HOLDINGS LLC v. SILVER SPRING NETWORKS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – The ordinary meaning of a claim term cannot be completely untethered to the context of the invention

by | Feb 29, 2016 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation

The ordinary meaning of a claim term cannot be completely untethered to the context of the invention. Here, for example, the claim terms “portable” and “mobile” were found to not cover everything utility meters attached to the exterior walls of buildings, even though...

STRAIGHT PATH IP GROUP, INC. v. SIPNET EU S.R.O. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Unambiguous plain meaning of a claim limitation is controlling over other descriptions in the specification

by | Nov 25, 2015 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation

Absent clear redefinition or disavowal, the plain meaning of a claim limitation will be controlling over other descriptions in the specification when the plain meaning is unambiguous. Here, for example, a “query” concerning the online status of other network devices...

IMAGINAL SYSTEMATIC, LLC v. LEGGETT & PLATT, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Negative claim limitations will be interpreted just as broadly as positive claim limitations

by | Nov 10, 2015 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation

Negative claim limitations will be interpreted just as broadly as positive claim limitations, which may significantly narrow the claim scope. Here, for example, method steps required to be performed “without the use of a vision guidance system” were found to exclude a...

SEALANT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL v. TEK GLOBAL, S.R.L. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Amorphous claim terms may be limited to the disclosed embodiments in the absence of further guidance

by | Jun 11, 2015 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation

Amorphous claim terms, as opposed to those that are clear and well-defined, may be limited to the specific embodiments disclosed in the specification when there is no guidance as to how the claim terms can be more broadly applied to a wider range of implementations....