Posted On :March 8th, 2012 By James Yang
The following case illustrates the difficulty in being able to predict the outcome of patent litigation. It also provides hints at improving ones patent drafting technique. During patent litigation, the claim terms are construed in light of (1) the plain meaning of the terms, (2) the specification and (3) the prosecution history among other things. [...]
Posted On :October 8th, 2011 By James Yang
Clear claim language is generally the primary goal of claim drafting. In the following case, the claim recited a means plus function limitation. These types of limitations appear to be broad but are limited to the specific structure disclosed in the patent application and linked to the function stated in the means plus function limitation. The means plus function limitation in the patent at issue recited “a release means for retaining” which is confusing because it is unclear whether the function is the release function or the retain function. The Court held that the claim is limited to structure related to both the release and the retain function. Court held: no infringement based on this claim construction. The point of this case is to follow the simple means plus function format of “means” followed by a function, preferably only one function.
Posted On :September 23rd, 2009 By James Yang
One of the most important sections of a patent specification is the claims. The reason is that the claims define the metes and bounds of patent protection afforded under the patent. For example, the scope of patent protection afforded under a product claim that recites elements a, b and c extends only to a product [...]
Posted On :June 29th, 2009 By James Yang
The claims define the metes and bounds of patent protection afforded under a patent. The claims can be drafted in many different ways. For example, the claims can recite a method, an apparatus or a product by process. A method claim recites various steps which if performed would infringe the patent. An apparatus claim recites [...]
Posted On :September 6th, 2006 By James Yang
On August 17, 2006, the Federal Circuit decided Conoco, Inc., et al. v. Energy & Environmental International, L.C., et al., Fed. Cir., No. 05-1363, 8/17/06. The patent in suit relates to a drag reducing agents injected into oil and gas pipelines such that more liquid may be pumped more efficiently. The claim recited a process [...]