Promote the Progress®

putting patent caselaw into practice

claim construction

Cases tagged claim construction

Kim v. ConAgra Foods

In Kim v. ConAgra Foods, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision of a 2-1 panel that split solely on a claim construction issue. Other issues addressed by the Court include sufficiency of evidence of infringement for claims that require functionality, and the proper test for...[more]

SRAM v. AD-II Engineering

In SRAM v. AD-II Engineering, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a claim construction offered by the district court on the grounds that the court had improperly read a limitation into the claim. The specification of the patent and the prosecution history supported the construction offered by...[more]

Georgetown Rail v. Holland

In Georgetown Rail, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of infringement from the Eastern District of Texas, including an award of enhanced damages for willful infringement. In doing so, the Court rejected the Appellant's challenges to the district court's findings on claim construction, infringement, damages,...[more]

Aptalis Pharmatech v. Apotex

In Aptalis Pharmatech v. Apotex, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected a claim construction offered by the district court. Conducting its de novo, Phillips-guided claim construction, the Court adopted a narrower construction that reflects a dictionary definition of the term 'surrounding' and that is supported by the...[more]

Monsanto Technology v. Dupont

In Monsanto Technology v. Dupont, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found no err in a claim construction by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO that interpreted the limitation "about 3% or less" to encompass a range that includes 4%. The Court noted that...[more]

Mangosoft v. Oracle

In Mangosoft v. Oracle Corporation, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a summary judgment holding that Oracle did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,148,377 [text]. The appeal presented only a single issue—the construction of a single claim term....[more]

The General Hospital Corporation v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals

In The General Hospital Corporation v. Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered whether the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board properly dismissed an interference for lack of standing by a patent applicant. In an interference between a patent application and U.S. Patent No. 8,821,941 [[more]

WesternGeco v. Ion Geophysical Corporation

Following on the heels of its en banc decision in Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom, which held that inter partes review “time-bar determinations under [35 U.S.C.] § 315(b) are reviewable by this court,” the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in WesternGeco v. Ion Geophysical Corporation considered the meaning of...[more]

Chrimar Holding Company v. ALE USA

In Chrimar Holding Company v. ALE USA, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered several issues, ranging from claim construction to fraud under Texas law and damages to attorney fees. Claim construction garnered the most attention, though. The court considered the limiting effect of the term 'adapted' in...[more]