• Home
  • About
    • Client Reviews
    • Patent Samples
    • Accolades
    • About Firm
    • Technologies
    • FAQs
  • Services
    • Patents
      • Patent Consultation
      • Patent Search Service
      • Patent Application Service
      • Patent Prosecution
      • Utility Patents
      • Design Patents
      • Patent Defense
      • Patent Enforcement
      • Working with In-House Attorneys
    • Trademarks
      • Trademark Search
      • Trademark Application Services
      • Trademark Prosecution
      • Trademark Enforcement
      • Trademark Defense
    • Licensing
    • Worldwide IP
    • Risk Management
    • Due Diligence
  • Industries
    • Browse Patent Samples
    • Automotive Patents
    • Construction Patents
    • Consumer Products Patents
    • Electronics Patents
    • Food, Beverage, & Other Culinary Patents
    • Manufacturing Patents
    • Medical Products & Devices Patents
    • Optics Patents
    • Software & App Patents
    • Tools & Equipment Patents
  • Learning Resources
    • First-Time Inventor?
    • Why Patent Your Invention in a Bad Economy?
    • Videos on Patents
    • Search 180+ Articles
      • Patent process
        • Overview of Patent Process
          • Patent process timeline and major milestones
          • Patent Process: Invention to Patent Granted (Simplified)
          • Patent process, overall steps and procedures
        • Overview of the examination process within the USPTO
          • Highs and lows of securing patent protection for your invention
          • What is the Patent Office procedure after filing a patent application?
        • Benefits of a Patent Search
          • What is a patent search and How to do it?
        • Patent attorneys, agents and the USPTO can help with the patent process
        • USPTO Website
      • Invention Agreements
        • What is an NDA and when to use them?
        • How to use a contract to protect your invention?
        • Working with others without losing your IP rights
        • Patent Assignments for Independent Contractors
        • Losing Invention Rights When Hiring or Collaborating with Others
        • Avoid Problems: Get an Invention Assignment Agreement
      • Protect Inventions
        • Misconceptions of Provisional Patent Applications
        • Do you need to get your patent attorney to sign an NDA?
        • Can a confidentiality agreement protect me like a patent application?
        • Four types of intellectual property to protect your idea and how to use them
          • Overview of Patents and Intellectual Property
          • Patent protection benefits and why every inventor should consider getting one
          • 8 tips to successfully protect your idea
          • Benefits of Patent Protection
          • Best uses for design patents
        • Reasons to only market your invention after securing patent pendency
          • Dangers of 1 yr grace period under first-inventor-to-file system
          • File a patent application before telling others about the invention
        • Risks and benefits of securing software patent protection
          • Strategy to overcome patentable subject matter rejection
        • Pros and cons of filing a continuation-in-part application
          • What is a continuation patent application?
      • How Patent Applications Work: the Basics
        • How to respond to an office action?
        • Request for non-publication of a patent application
        • Anatomy of a Patent Document
        • How to write a broad patent application?
        • Design patents: pros and cons
      • Patent costs
        • How much does it cost to get a utility patent?
        • Provisional Patent Application: Cheap Alternative?
        • Patent Cost Framework and cash flow
        • Provisional patent application: a cheap option?
        • Cheap provisional patent applications
      • Patent infringement
        • Basics of writing a patent claim for a patent application
        • Patent Marking: Everything you wanted to know
        • Avoiding Patent Infringement
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product?
        • Can I Copy My Competitor’s Product? (Design Patent)
      • Worldwide patents
        • Pros and cons of securing worldwide patent protection and their steps
        • Foreign patent filing to secure protection in other countries
      • Responding to Office Actions
        • Overview of Office Actions
      • Trademarks
        • Trademark Registration: common law, state and federal
        • How to obtain a federal trademark registration?
        • How to select a trademark?
          • Protect your idea when pitching to an investor, potential licensee, or buyer
  • Schedule Consultation
  • Contact

Top-Rated Orange County Patent Lawyer | Helping Inventors in Orange County, Los Angeles County & Beyond | OC Patent Lawyer, Irvine CA

Orange County Patent Attorney

(949) 433-0900
You are here: Home / Patent Applications / Transitional phrase in a claim determines scope of patent protection

Transitional phrase in a claim determines scope of patent protection

July 17, 2017 by James Yang

Transitional phraseA patent claim has three major sections, namely, a preamble, a transitional phrase, and a body.  The body of the claim contains the elements which define the scope of patent protection as defined by that claim. The transitional phrase indicates whether incorporating other elements or components in an accused infringing device other than those elements recited in the body would avoid infringement of the claim. The preamble in general defines the environment (i.e., context) of the claimed invention but does not limit the claim unless the preamble breathes life into the claim.  Shire Development LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Fed. Cir. February 10, 2017) discusses the impact on the scope of claims when using a closed transitional phrase “consisting of.”

Three types of transitional phrases exist: “comprising,” “consisting of” and “consisting essentially of.” The transitional phrase “comprising” is referred to as an open transitional phrase because even if the accused infringing device includes additional components and elements, the accused infringing device will not avoid infringement as long as the accused infringing device incorporates all of the elements recited in the body of the claims or the claim elements.

The transitional phrases “consisting of” and “consisting essentially of” are respectively referred to as closed or partially closed transitional phrases. In particular, when a claim’s transitional phrase is either “consisting of” or “consisting essentially of,” adding an additional component or element to the accused infringing device may avoid infringement of the claim even if the accused infringing device incorporates all of the limitations and elements recited in the body of the claim. The issue decided in Shire Development turned on the scope of patent protection when the closed transitional phrase was used in the patent’s claim.

For a claim with the “consisting of” transitional phrase, if an added element is related to the invention then the accused infringing device does not infringe the claim. For a claim with the “consisting essentially of” transitional phrase, if the accused infringing device includes an added component or element that materially affects the basic and novel characteristic of the invention, then the accused infringing device does not infringe the claimed invention. On the other hand, if the accused infringing device includes an added component or element that does not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic of the invention and affects the basic and novel characteristic of the invention in a minor way, then the accused infringing device would still infringe the patent claim.

In Shire Development, the Federal Circuit compared a popular case relating to transitional phrases, namely, Norian. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2111.03 provides a detailed explanation of the three types of transitional phrases and utilizes the Norian case in explaining the scope of patent protection defined by a claim that utilizes a closed transitional phrase.

The invention claimed in Norian:

  1. Utilized the closed transitional phrase “consisting of”;
  2. The claimed invention was directed to a chemical kit; and
  3. The accused infringing device included a spatula.

The Court in Norian held that the accused infringing product infringed the claim.  The accused infringing device did not avoid infringement of the claim because a spatula was unrelated to the claimed invention and had no interaction with the chemicals of the kit.

The instant case involved a claim that also used the closed “consisting of” transitional phrase. But, the accused infringer argued that the holding of Norian should be taken a step further.

The invention claimed in the instant case:

  1. Utilized the closed “consisting of” transitional phrase;
  2. The claimed invention was directed to an inner lipophilic matrix and an outer hydrophilic matrix; and
  3. The accused infringing product included an inner lipophilic matrix and an outer hydrophilic matrix with a small amount of a lipophilic substance in the outer hydrophilic matrix.

The District Court found that the accused infringing product infringed the patent claim.  Upon appeal, the Federal Circuit disagreed.

The District Court had found that the lipophilic substance in the outer hydrophilic matrix still had a lipophilic influence on the outer hydrophilic matrix. The Federal Circuit held that the use of the closed transitional phrase, namely, “consisting of” and the related nature of the lipophilic substance in the outer hydrophilic matrix still had an influence that was lipophilic in nature. Hence, the Federal Circuit held that there was no infringement of the patent claim that utilized the closed transitional phrase.

Moreover, the Federal Circuit explained that to come to a different conclusion would do damage to the definition for the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of.” The transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” is defined as being partially closed.  This transitional phrase allows for infringement if the added component in the accused infringing product was not material to the invention. The accused infringer wanted to broaden the scope of the closed transitional phrase “consisting of” to be equivalent to the partially closed transitional phrase “consisting essentially of.”  For these reasons, the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court.  The addition of a lipophilic substance in the outer hydrophilic matrix had an effect that was lipophilic in nature, and thus infringement was avoided. This is true even though the intended purpose of adding the lipophilic substance was for lubrication and not for its lipophilic characteristic (i.e., water dissolvability).

For the layperson, in the vast majority of patent cases, the claims should utilize the open transitional phrase “comprising” which is open-ended and avoids this issue altogether. However, during examination or patent prosecution, there may be times when utilizing the “consisting essentially of” or “consisting of” transitional phrases may be useful in overcoming a rejection made by the examiner. However, the ramifications for doing so should be explored before utilizing the closed or partially closed transitional phrases.

I invite you to contact me with your patent questions (949) 433-0900. Please feel free to forward this article to your friends. As an Orange County Patent Attorney, I serve Orange County, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and surrounding cities.

Related Articles for Patent Applications

  • How to respond to an office action?
  • Request for non-publication of a patent application
  • Anatomy of a patent document
  • How to write a broad patent application?
  • Design patents: pros and cons
  • How not to write the background section of a patent application?
  • Avoid disparaging prior art in patent application
  • Broad claims pose enablement issues
  • Claim Drafting Tip: Avoid means plus function claims
  • Functional language invalidates patent claim
  • Transitional phrase in a claim determines scope of patent protection
  • Patent Drafting Tip: Alternative embodiments create prior art
  • Preparing Drawings for a Utility Patent Application
  • Expedited examination at the USPTO
  • Define the invention
  • Claim scope negatively impacted due to deleted info from provisional application
  • Limits on trade dress protection when also securing a utility patent
  • Means plus function without the MEANS trigger
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

Author

James Yang is a patent attorney. For more than 16 years, James Yang has been representing clients to secure patent protection for their inventions and register trademarks to protect their brands. If you need help, call him at (949) 433-0900. Read More…

Popular Posts

  • Patent process overview
  • Patent process explained
  • How much does a patent cost?
  • Why patent your invention in a bad economy?

Patent Book

Navigating the Patent System - new book by Orange County patent attorney, James Yang

Navigating the Patent System: Learn the patent process and strategies to protect your invention

Read for Free
Buy at Amazon

RECEIVE PATENT ARTICLES

Stay up to date on major changes and get tips on the patent process.

We respect your privacy.

Popular Posts

Patent process overview
Patent process explained
How much does a patent cost?
Trademark process and costs
Patent process and costs

 

Services

Patent Consultations
Patent Searches
Patent Applications
Utility Patents
Design Patents
Patent Prosecution Services
Patent Defense Services
Patent-Law Counsel for In-House Attorneys
Trademark Overview
Trademark Search Services
Trademark Application Services
Trademark Prosecution Services
Trademark Enforcement Services
Trademark Defense Services
See All Services

Industries

Automotive Patents
Consumer Products Patents
Culinary Patents
Manufacturing Patents
Medical Patents
Optics Patents
Software & App Patents
See All Industries

Contact

James Yang
OC Patent Lawyer
2372 Morse Ave., Suite #178
Irvine, CA 92614
Tel: (949) 433-0900

Connect

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn

Sitemaps

Sitemap: Pages | Sitemap: Posts

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

By accessing this blog, you agree that no attorney-client relationship is formed except by a subsequent written retainer agreement. Also, you agree to not send confidential information unless directed by me to do so. The information posted on this blog is legal information and not legal advice.
Complete Terms of Use
Complete Privacy Policy

ADA Compliance

OC Patent Lawyer aims to ensure that its services are accessible to people with disabilities.
Accessibility Statement

Service Area

From our office in Irvine, California, we serve clients from all areas within Orange County and Los Angeles County, California.

© 2023 · James Yang, Your Entrepreneur and Mid-Size Business Patent Attorney