SECURE WEB CONFERENCE CORP. v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – Touting a characteristic of a claimed feature as advantageous without counterexamples renders it essential

by | Feb 17, 2016 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

Repeatedly touting a particular characteristic of a claimed feature as being advantageous without providing any broader embodiments reinforces that characteristic as essential. Here, for example, a “security device” was found to be limited to a stand-alone device that...

OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC. v. APPLE INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Disparaged combinations in the specification will be generally found to be disclaimed from the claim scope

by | Dec 15, 2015 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

Any combination that is thoroughly disparaged in the specification will be generally found to be disclaimed from the ultimate claim scope. Here, for example, the fact that the specification was rife with remarks that disparage more complex mobile devices incorporating...

ATLAS IP, LLC v. ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Soft language such as “approximately” can provide wiggle room for different modes of operation

by | Oct 29, 2015 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

Soft language such as “approximately” can provide wiggle room for different modes of operation. Here, for example, the claimed communication cycle invention was not found to be inoperable without the hub sending start-time information to a remote device before each...

INTERDIGITAL v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Definitive terms such as “always” designate the corresponding characteristic as universal to the invention

by | Feb 18, 2015 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

Use of definitive terms such as “always” indicates that the corresponding characteristic is universal to the invention. Here, for example, the claimed “power control bit” was found to be limited to a single-bit power control command because the specification described...

VEHICLE IP, LLC v. AT&T MOBILITY, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Permissive language such as “may be” indicates that a certain feature is broader than the context described

by | Nov 18, 2014 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

Permissive language such as “may be” indicates that a certain feature is broader than the context in which it is described. Here, for example, the specification stated that the claimed navigational way points “may be” used as intermediate points on the route, which...

AZURE NETWORKS, LLC v. CSR, PLC (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Cursory inconsistencies in terminology are not sufficient to redefine a well-established term of art

by | Nov 6, 2014 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

Cursory inconsistencies in terminology—although not ideal—are not a strong enough suggestion that the patentee intended to redefine a well-established term of art, especially when the limitation at issue is not the actual invention itself or an otherwise critical...