Patent Claim Construction Under Teva V. Sandoz: Deference at Last or More of the Same?

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua D. Furman
Keyword(s):  
Patent Claim ◽  
Patent Claim Construction

Judicial Management of Patent Claim Construction

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca N. Eyre ◽  
Joe S. Cecil ◽  
Eric Topor
Keyword(s):  
Patent Claim ◽  
Patent Claim Construction

scholarly journals Cooperative Patent Prosecution: Viewing Patents through a Pragmatics Len

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen Jakobsen Osenga
Keyword(s):  
Patent Office ◽  
Patent Claim ◽  
Acquisition Process ◽  
Patent Claim Construction

This Article constructs a linguistics-based framework to consider patent claim construction and demonstrates that the often-told story that claim construction is broken is, in fact, wrong. Rather, it is the underlying conversations that comprise the patent acquisition process that are to blame. In Part I of this Article, I use linguistics to describe the characteristics of everyday conversation, as well as how it is interpreted. In Part II, I explain what patent conversations look like and how they are similar to and different from everyday conversation. In Part III, I apply the theories of interpreting everyday conversation to patent conversation. Breaking from tradition, I assert that claim construction is not broken; much claim construction methodology aligns with how we interpret everyday conversation. Claim construction is as good as it can be, given linguistic limitations. The problem is the patent conversation itself, specifically the communications that occur between the inventor and the Patent Office that give rise to an issued patent. I close, in Part IV, by explaining how cooperation can-and should-be injected into the patent conversation and how a cooperative patent conversation leads to improved claim construction.

Vagueness of Patent Claim Language, Claim Construction and Patent Infringement – What a Mess!

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (11) ◽  
pp. 1097-1104
Author(s):  
Nefissa Chakroun
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Patent Infringement ◽  
Patent Claim ◽  
The Us ◽  
Patent Documents ◽  
Chief Characteristic ◽  
Patent Claim Construction

Abstract The claim drafting process, which is inherently related to inventions, is not exempt from difficulties. Prominent among these is vagueness, which can often be the chief characteristic of patent claims. This paper argues that such ambiguities may hamper the development and teaching functions of patent documents and can also distort infringement systems. It addresses legal issues related to patent claim construction, including the use of intrinsic or extrinsic evidence to clarify an ambiguous or vague claim. Confusion surrounding the use of expert testimony for determining the meaning of a claim is also highlighted. Largely based on the US law, the paper suggests ways to reduce claim ambiguity, such as the use of claim charts. Emphasis is placed on the clarity of the claims’ wording, because this acts as a safeguard against any infringement risk. In brief, constructing patent claims remains largely an unsettled and uncertain area of patent law. What really matters is the clarity of the claim language because definiteness, preciseness, conciseness and exactness are major guarantees of a patent’s validity.

scholarly journals The "Broadest Reasonable Interpretation" and Applying Issue Preclusion to Administrative Patent Claim Construction

2018 ◽  
pp. 349
Author(s):  
Jonathan Tietz
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Property Right ◽  
District Court ◽  
District Courts ◽  
Patent Claim ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Patent Claim Construction

Inventions are tangible. Yet patents comprise words, and words are imprecise. Thus, disputes over patents involve a process known as “claim construction,” which formally clarifies the meaning of a patent claim’s words and, therefore, the scope of the underlying property right. Adversarial claim construction commonly occurs in various Article III and Article I settings, such as district courts or the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). When these proceedings ignore each other’s claim constructions, a patent’s scope can become inconsistent and unpredictable. The doctrine of issue preclusion could help with this problem. The Supreme Court recently reemphasized in B & B Hardware v. Hargis Industries that administrative decisions can have issue preclusive effect. But district courts and the PTAB use formally different legal standards in claim construction, where the district court takes a narrower view of a patent’s scope. This Note contends that a claim construction determination made by the PTAB under the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard should, indeed, be the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim. To facilitate uniformity and public notice, issue preclusion should be applied such that the PTAB’s “broadest reasonable interpretation” is an outer interpretive bound of a patent’s scope in subsequent district court litigation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document