Message: Nothing on PACER after hours
Bank , As you review those Markman rulings lately increasing number of trial court and court of
appeals decisions citing and relying on Phillips case , a clear trend toward better determination of
the scope of claim term and specifically toward narrower claim scope. As they said they are trying
to limit the patent scope to what the inventor really invented. Phillips case provide the tools to be
used for scope of patent claim term what the inventor actually invented . If the trend is now
Phillips case that is emphasize of intrinsic evidence when determining the proper scope of patent
claim it will be a more favorable toward e.DIGITAL for outcome of Markman ruling. JMHO
Following are brief i views of Phillips case law per LAW SCHOOL CASE BRIEFS :
Appellate Court found that "entirely appropriate for a court, when conducting claim construction, to rely heavily on the written description for guidance as to the meaning of the claims."
claims."
The Court found that looking at prosecution history is less useful because of a lack of clarity in comparison to the specification.
The Court found that extrinsic evidence (like dictionaries) is less useful because here is no guarantee that a term is used in the same way in a treatise or dictionary as it is by the patentee.
Basically, this case said that when a judge is called on to construe what the words in a patent claim mean, they should perform a detailed analysis of the patent specification (as well as the other claims in the patent), and not rely very heavily on extrinsic evidence (like dictionary definitions) or procedural history.
Also this is the one of recent Markman ruling with its attention based on Phillips case
_______________________________________________________________________
- The Court noted that 5 U.S.C. § 112 ¶1, says that the "specification necessarily informs the proper construction of the claims."
-
Courts should also look at the other claims of the patent to see if you can construe meaning of any terms in the ambiguous claim.
- The canon of claim differentiation says that courts should not construe to claims to have the same meeting.
A California Federal Court has ruled in favor of Trent West, owner of seven patents related to the concept and manufacture of Tungsten Carbide rings in the United States, in the patent infringement lawsuit filed by West claiming C&C Manufacturing violated his patents.
Santa Cruz, CA (PRWEB) August 19, 2010
A California Federal Court has ruled in favor of Trent West, owner of seven patents related to the concept and manufacture of Tungsten Carbide rings in the United States, in the patent infringement lawsuit filed by West claiming C&C Manufacturing violated his patents. The case was heard in the United States District Court, Northern District of California as Case No: CV103124.
The court ruling, known as a Markman Ruling, was granted in a pretrial hearing where a judge interprets the patent infringement claims made by the plaintiff, in this case Trent West. This decision determined the scope of the patent(s) and states that the patents are concerned with jewelry finger rings.
This case involves jewelry rings made of tungsten carbide and a method for making such
rings. Plaintiff Trent West (“West”) alleges that jewelry rings sold by Defendants Jewelry
Innovations, Inc., Tosyali International, Ltd dba Benchmark, Northstar Diamond, Inc., and
Crown Rings, Inc.2 (collectively “Benchmark”) infringe four West patents including the ’734,
’736, ’314, and the ’972 patents. (collectively referred to as “the patents”).
The ’736, ’314, and ’972 patents are continuations-in-part of Application No. 149,796,
filed on September 8, 1998, now U.S. Patent No. 6,062,045. The ’734 patent issued from
Application No. 426,054 that was filed on April 28, 2003. The specifications of the patents are
similar although each contain some additional material. The invention generally relates to a
method for making jewelry out of tungsten carbide. The patents describe a method of “creating
commercially viable tungsten carbide jewelry.” Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief at
3:7. The ’734 patent is directed to jewelry rings. The ’314, ’736, and ’972 are directed to
methods of making jewelry rings and finger rings.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Claim construction is a question of law to be decided by the Court. Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The
patentee’s use of a claim term in the specification is highly relevant to understanding the proper
context in which the term is used. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The specification is the “single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id., citing
Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
rings. Plaintiff Trent West (“West”) alleges that jewelry rings sold by Defendants Jewelry
Innovations, Inc., Tosyali International, Ltd dba Benchmark, Northstar Diamond, Inc., and
Crown Rings, Inc.2 (collectively “Benchmark”) infringe four West patents including the ’734,
’736, ’314, and the ’972 patents. (collectively referred to as “the patents”).
The ’736, ’314, and ’972 patents are continuations-in-part of Application No. 149,796,
filed on September 8, 1998, now U.S. Patent No. 6,062,045. The ’734 patent issued from
Application No. 426,054 that was filed on April 28, 2003. The specifications of the patents are
similar although each contain some additional material. The invention generally relates to a
method for making jewelry out of tungsten carbide. The patents describe a method of “creating
commercially viable tungsten carbide jewelry.” Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief at
3:7. The ’734 patent is directed to jewelry rings. The ’314, ’736, and ’972 are directed to
methods of making jewelry rings and finger rings.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Claim construction is a question of law to be decided by the Court. Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The
patentee’s use of a claim term in the specification is highly relevant to understanding the proper
context in which the term is used. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The specification is the “single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id., citing
Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
16 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply