IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
Results for "Patent infringement"
Subscribe to Results for "Patent infringement"'s Posts

No Blank Check: Vendor Can’t Claim Declaratory Judgment From Customer Lawsuits Alone

by | Jun 18, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a declaratory judgment action, explaining that declaratory judgment jurisdiction does not “arise merely on the basis that a party learns of the existence of a patent owned by another or even perceives such a patent to pose a risk of infringement, without some affirmative act by the patentee.” Mitek Sys., Inc. v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, Case No. 23-1687 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2025) (Taranto, Schall, Chen, JJ.)

Mitek develops a mobile image capture software development kit called MiSnap. United Services Automobile Association (USAA) sent letters to and filed infringement claims against several of Mitek’s bank customers. Mitek sought a declaratory judgment that it and its customers did not infringe four USAA patents related to mobile check deposits, arguing that it had standing based on a reasonable apprehension of suit and indemnity demands from its customers. The district court dismissed the declaratory judgment action, which Mitek appealed. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s dismissal, finding that the decision lacked adequate explanation and support.

On remand, the district court again analyzed Mitek’s two jurisdictional bases for its declaratory judgment action: potential liability for infringement and alleged demands for indemnity made by licensees after USAA sent letters seeking to license USAA patents. The district court again dismissed the case, determining that Mitek could not establish a case or controversy between USAA and Mitek as to infringement, and determining that indemnification agreements and USAA’s letters to Mitek customers did not create a reasonable potential for Mitek’s indemnification liability. Even if it had jurisdiction, the district court stated that it would exercise its discretion to decline jurisdiction, because the best means by which Mitek could defend the MiSnap software used by the banks was to intervene in a future litigation brought by USAA against a Mitek customer regarding the asserted patents. Mitek again appealed.

The threshold question for declaratory judgment jurisdiction is “whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.”

Regarding Mitek’s infringement basis, the Federal Circuit found that Mitek did not establish a reasonable potential of the suit for infringement. The Court’s consideration also included post-filing events, including settlements of related customer suits and Patent & Trial Appeal Board decisions invalidating asserted patent claims. These developments further undermined any ongoing controversy. The Court then addressed the allegations of direct infringement, induced infringement, and contributory infringement:

  • Direct Infringement. Mitek admitted that MiSnap alone did not perform all elements of any asserted claim. USAA also never accused MiSnap of satisfying every limitation of an asserted claim. Instead, MiSnap’s “unadulterated” software implemented by third-party banks failed to meet certain elements of the asserted claims. And although Mitek stated that it evaluated the complete mobile deposit system, Mitek could not have had a reasonable apprehension of suit based on testing its [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

In Determining Subject Matter Eligibility, the Name of the Game Is the Claim

by | Jun 18, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a district court grant of summary judgment of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in connection with a patent directed to remote check deposit technology, explaining that details in the specification but not recited in the claims could not be relied on to meet the test for abstraction. United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank N.A., Case No. 23-1639 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2025) (Dyk, Clevenger, Hughes, JJ.)

The patent in issue was directed to a system for allowing a customer to deposit a check using the customer’s handheld mobile device and claimed a “system configured to authenticate the customer using data representing a customer fingerprint.”

After the United Services Automobile Association (USAA) sued PNC for infringement of the patent, both parties filed motions for summary judgment seeking an adjudication as to whether the claims were patent eligible under § 101. The district court granted USAA’s motion, finding that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea and therefore were patent eligible. After a five-day trial, the jury found no invalidity of the asserted claims and found that PNC had infringed. PNC appealed.

The Federal Circuit found that the asserted claim was directed to the abstract idea of depositing a check using a handheld mobile device. At Alice step one, the Court found that the invention claimed steps for carrying out the process of a mobile check deposit by “instructing the customer to take a photo of [a] check,” “using [a] wireless network” to transmit a copy of the photo, and having the configured system “check for errors.” The Court determined that this amounted to a routine process implemented by a general-purpose device. The Court further found that the claim recited routine data collection and analysis steps that have been traditionally performed by banks and people depositing checks – namely reviewing checks, recognizing relevant data, checking for errors, and storing the resultant data.

USAA argued that “accomplishing check deposit on a consumer device required the development of extremely non-obvious algorithms.” The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, noting that the Court focuses on the claims, not the specification, to determine eligibility, because “the level of detail in the specification does not transform a claim reciting only an abstract concept into a patent-eligible system or method.” Since the claims did not recite the algorithms and neither the specification nor the claims contained a “clear description of how the claimed system is configured,” but only “a concept of improving the check deposit process,” the Court found that the claimed subject matter was directed only to an abstract idea.

At Alice step two (not addressed by the district court, which concluded that the claims passed muster at Alice step one), the Federal Circuit considered whether the claim elements contained an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The Court found no inventive concept present, as computer-mediated implementation of routine or conventional activity is not enough to provide [...]

Continue Reading



read more

No Article III Appellate Standing Under the Sun

by | May 15, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed Incyte’s appeal of a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision, holding that a disappointed validity challenger lacked appellate standing to challenge the Board’s final written decision. Incyte Corp. v. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries, Inc., Case No. 23-1300 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2025) (Moore, C.J.; Hughes, Cunningham, JJ.) (Hughes, J., concurring).

After the Board upheld the validity of challenged claims of a patent owned by Sun Pharmaceuticals in a post-grant review proceeding (PGR), Incyte appealed and sought a determination that the claims were unpatentable. Sun Pharmaceuticals challenged whether Incyte had Article III standing to support an appeal to the Federal Circuit based on a lack of injury-in-fact.

The Federal Circuit focused on its jurisdiction to hear the appeal as a threshold issue and whether Incyte, as the party seeking review, met its burden of establishing Article III standing at the time it filed its appeal.

As context, the Federal Circuit noted that standing requires a concrete, actual, or imminent injury that is traceable to the challenged conduct and likely to be redressed by the court’s decision. Incyte asserted it had standing to appeal based on potential infringement liability and under the competitor standing doctrine.

Addressing potential infringement liability, the Federal Circuit noted Incyte’s reliance on a supplemental declaration from an in-house business development leader submitted during briefing. Noting that Incyte’s Article III standing was “not self-evident,” the Court ruled that Incyte should have presented evidence prior to its reply brief and declined to consider the supplemental evidence. Incyte was on notice that its appellate standing was challenged, and that evidence of its standing should have been submitted at the earliest possible opportunity. Finding no good cause for the delay, the Court declined to exercise its discretion to consider Incyte’s supplemental evidence and, based only on earlier submitted evidence, found that Incyte failed to establish that it had “concrete plans for future activity” that would create a “substantial risk of future infringement.”

In its discussion of the competitor standing doctrine, which allows competitors to challenge patents that could harm their competitive position, the Federal Circuit found the doctrine inapplicable because Incyte failed to show it would suffer economic harm from the Board’s ruling on patent validity. Rather, the Board’s ruling upholding specific patent claims “does not, by the operation of ordinary economic forces, naturally harm a [challenger] just because it is a competitor in the same market as the beneficiary of the government action (the patentee).” As the Court explained, “it is not enough to show a benefit to a competitor to establish injury in fact; the party seeking to establish standing must show a concrete injury to itself.”

The Federal Circuit held that because Incyte had not shown it was currently engaged in or had non-speculative plans to engage in conduct covered by the challenged patent, it was unable to establish injury-in-fact.

In his concurrence, Judge Hughes stated that while Incyte lacked Article III standing, he believed that Federal Circuit precedent was [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Breaking New Grounds to Limits of IPR Estoppel

by | May 15, 2025 |

In a matter of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel does not preclude a petitioner from relying on the same patents and printed publications as evidence in asserting a ground that could not have been raised during the IPR proceeding, such as that the claimed invention was known or used by others, on sale, or in public use. Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, Case No. 23-1367 (Fed. Cir. May 7, 2025) (Dyk, Prost, Hughes, JJ.)

IOENGINE owns patents directed to a portable device, such as a USB thumb drive, that includes a processor that causes communications to be sent to a network server in response to user interaction with an interface on a terminal. Ingenico filed a declaratory judgment action against IOENGINE after one of Ingenico’s customers was sued for infringement based on Ingenico’s products. Ingenico filed IPR petitions challenging the asserted patents, which resulted in final written decisions that held most of the challenged claims unpatentable.

Back at the district court, IOENGINE proceeded with the remaining claims. At summary judgment, IOENGINE moved, under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), to preclude Ingenico from relying on “documentation related to DiskOnKey Upgrade software,” arguing that Ingenico reasonably could have been expected to raise that prior art during the IPR proceedings. The district court ruled that “Ingenico will be estopped from relying on those documents [to prove invalidity] except to the extent . . . that they form part of a substantively different combination of references that could not reasonably have been raised in the IPRs.”

At trial, Ingenico introduced evidence of a prior art USB device known as the DiskOnKey. The DiskOnKey device was offered with various software applications, including an application called Firmware Upgrader, and was equipped with capabilities described in a Software Development Kit (together, the DiskOnKey system). Ingenico argued that the DiskOnKey system invalidated the asserted claims as anticipated or obvious because it was either “on sale” or “in public use” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), or “known or used by others . . . before the date of the invention” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). The jury returned a verdict finding the patents were infringed but invalid as anticipated and obvious. Both parties appealed.

IOENGINE did not dispute the jury’s finding that the DiskOnKey system invalidated the claims-at-issue as anticipated or obvious if the DiskOnKey system was prior art, but instead argued that the jury’s finding that the Firmware Upgrader portion of the DiskOnKey system was either “on sale” or “in public use,” or “known or used by others . . . before the invention.”

The Federal Circuit found that the jury’s finding that the Firmware Upgrader was accessible to the public was supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, Ingenico had introduced a press release promoting the launch of the Firmware Upgrader and a website from which the Firmware Upgrader was available for download. IOENGINE argued that this evidence did not show actual use, but the Court rejected [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Hatch-Waxman or Not, Clinical Trials Aren’t Subject to Injunction

by | May 15, 2025 |

Analyzing the permissible scope of an injunction under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s prohibitions on an open-label extension (OLE) of a then-running clinical trial and new clinical trials and remanded for further consideration of whether prohibiting a request for an additional indication was appropriate. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals LLC, Case No. 24-2274 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2025) (Lourie, Reyna, Taranto, JJ.)

This appeal is one of several disputes between Jazz and Avadel regarding their competing sodium oxybate products. Jazz markets two such products: Xyrem, approved for treating excessive daytime sleepiness and certain cataplexy, and Xywav, which, in addition to Xyrem’s indications, also may be used for treating idiopathic hypersomnia. Avadel filed a § 505(b)(2) new drug application (NDA) to market its own product, Lumryz. During the pendency of the Lumryz application, Jazz obtained a patent and asserted that Avadel infringed it under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), part of the Hatch-Waxman Act, based on its filing of the Lumryz NDA. The patent was never Orange Book listed, so Avadel did not need to submit any patent certification.

The US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approved Lumryz. Avadel launched the product, and Jazz amended its complaint to assert traditional § 271(a) – (c) infringement. Ultimately, Avadel and Jazz stipulated infringement, the patent was determined not invalid, and the jury awarded damages based on the post-launch infringement. After further proceedings, the district court permanently enjoined Avadel from seeking an idiopathic hypersomnia indication for Lumryz, offering an OLE phase of its then-running Lumryz idiopathic hypersomnia clinical trial, and against initiating new clinical trials. Avadel appealed, arguing that each of these restrictions was improper.

The Federal Circuit largely agreed with Avadel, reversing the first two prohibitions, and remanded the case back to the district court for further consideration of the prohibition against any new clinical trials. Turning first to the prohibition on new clinical trials, the Court held that initiating new trials for the purposes of submission to the FDA fell squarely within the Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor for experimentation (under § 271(e)(1)) and thus could not be enjoined (per §271(e)(3)). Jazz unsuccessfully argued that Avadel had waived its Safe Harbor position, which required factual development.

Next, the Federal Circuit rejected the district court’s injunction against an OLE, concluding that the district court had not applied the Supreme Court’s four-factor eBay (2006) test for injunctions when deciding the appropriateness of such extraordinary relief. Refusing to determine whether an OLE extension qualified as safe-harbored activity in the first instance, the Court explained that only if such activity were deemed to be infringing on an appropriate record could it be enjoined.

Finally, with respect to prohibiting Avadel from seeking an idiopathic hypersomnia indication for Lumryz, the Federal Circuit concluded that the propriety of that restriction may turn on whether the infringement qualified under the Hatch-Waxman Act, reasoning that an injunction might run afoul of the § 271(e)(4) limitation on the scope of injunctive relief. [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Munich Court Addresses Implementer’s Obligation To Provide Security in FRAND Negotiations

by and | Apr 17, 2025 | ,

The Munich Higher Regional Court issued a decision concerning the fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) negotiation process and an implementer’s obligation to provide security if a license offer for standard essential patents (SEPs) is rejected. HMD Global v. VoiceAge, Case No. 6 U 3824/22 Kart, (Judgment of 20 March 2025).

In this case, the Munich Higher Regional Court attempted to fill a gap left by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Huawei v. ZTE regarding an implementer’s obligation to provide adequate security for royalties. This obligation arises when an implementer rejects a SEP holder’s license offer and the SEP holder rejects the implementer’s counteroffer, so there is no agreement on a license.

The Munich Court found that the implementer, HMD Global, provided an inadequate security that was based on HMD Global’s lower counteroffer. The Court explained that it is the SEP holder’s, here VoiceAges, final offer (i.e., the requested royalty) that is determinative for calculating the security amount that an implementer should provide. This is because a willing licensee must accept the SEP holder’s offer if a court declares it to be FRAND and the royalties subject to this offer must be covered by the security. The Court emphasized that an implementer can only establish that it is a willing licensee by making a counteroffer and providing adequate security after rejecting the offer.

However, the Munich Court left open the issue of whether security must be provided if the SEP holder’s final offer is obviously not FRAND, noting that there may be “special cases” where the SEP holder’s final offer may not be determinative of the security without further defining those cases.

The CJEU’s Guidelines to FRAND Negotiations Are Not a Rigid Set of Rules

The Munich Court also took a critical stance in response to the European Commission’s amicus curiae brief and found that the FRAND guidelines set by the CJEU in Huawei v. ZTE are not to be viewed as a rigid set of rules but rather as a “dynamic concept for negotiation.” A court is not limited to assessing the FRAND defense by strictly examining in sequence each step of the CJEU’s guidelines, which includes the following:

  • The SEP holder must send a notice of infringement to the implementer.
  • The implementer must declare to be a willing licensee.
  • The SEP holder must make a FRAND offer.
  • If the offer is not FRAND, the implementer is allowed to reject it but must make a counteroffer.
  • The implementer must provide adequate security for royalties if the SEP holder rejects the implementer’s counteroffer.

The European Commission argued that a court must examine each step before moving on to the next one. This means that, for example, once a court has found that the implementer is a willing licensee, the court must leave the implementer’s subsequent (possibly non-FRAND) conduct out of consideration and cannot undermine the implementer’s established willingness to take a license. A court must then assess whether [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Prosecution Disclaimer Alive and Well, Especially in Closed Claim

by | Apr 17, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s noninfringement determination, finding that the presence of a disclaimed compound in the accused product precluded infringement. Azurity Pharm., Inc. v. Alkem Lab’ys Ltd., Case No. 23-1977 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2025) (Moore, Chen, Murphy, JJ.)

Azurity owns a patent directed to a nonsterile, stable liquid formulation of vancomycin hydrochloride, specifically designed for oral administration to treat Clostridium difficile infections. Following Alkem’s submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA), Azurity brought a Hatch-Waxman Act claim against Alkem for infringement of certain claims of the patent. The district court found that Azurity had disclaimed the presence of propylene glycol in the claimed formulation during the prosecution. Since Alkem’s ANDA product contained propylene glycol, the district court held that it did not infringe. Azurity appealed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed, focusing on the patent’s prosecution history and noting that Azurity used the lack of propylene glycol to distinguish its claimed invention from the prior art. The Court noted that this distinction was made during prosecution multiple times in response to the examiner’s rejections, and that Azurity had added negative claim limitations that specifically omitted propylene glycol from the scope of the claims.

The Federal Circuit also noted that Azurity used a “consisting of” transitional phrase to narrow the claims and relied on the closed transition to overcome the prior art. The Court explained that “consisting of” is a closed transition that limits the claim scope to only the recited components. By using this transition and not including propylene glycol as one of the claim components, Azurity effectively disclaimed propylene glycol from the invention. Therefore, the Court found that omission of propylene glycol during patent prosecution was “clean, unambiguous, and complete.”

Azurity argued that a pretrial stipulation between the parties, which stated that “[s]uitable flavoring agents for use in the asserted claims include flavoring agents with or without propylene glycol,” should preclude the application of the disclaimer. The Federal Circuit did not find this argument persuasive, concluding that the stipulation did not alter the clear and unambiguous disclaimer made during prosecution, nor did it affect the noninfringement finding. Since Alkem’s ANDA product contained propylene glycol and Azurity disclaimed inclusion of propylene glycol, there was no infringement.



read more

Impermissible Convoyed Sales Wash Away Damages Award

by | Apr 3, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding of infringement but vacated its damages award because the award improperly included auxiliary products lacking any functional relationship to the infringed patent claim. Wash World Inc. v. Belanger Inc., Case No. 2023-1841 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2025) (Stark, Lourie, Prost, JJ.)

Belanger owns a patent related to a spray-type car wash system. A competitor, Wash World, filed for a declaratory judgment that its car wash system did not infringe the patent.

A jury returned a general verdict of infringement and awarded Belanger $9.8 million in lost profit damages. Wash World moved for judgment as a matter of law of noni  nfringement based on the positions it previously raised and challenged the damages award. Wash World argued that Belanger failed to prove entitlement to lost profits for convoyed sales. The district court rejected Wash World’s arguments. Wash World appealed, challenging the district court’s constructions of three claim terms that Wash World argued were dispositive to noninfringement and the damages award for improperly including nearly $2.6 million in ineligible convoyed sales.

The Federal Circuit concluded that for two of the three claim terms, the constructions Wash World argued for on appeal were materially different from the constructions it urged the district court to adopt. The Federal Circuit emphasized that while a party is not confined to the precise wording of the constructions it advances at the district court, it must still present essentially the same dispute on appeal. Finding no exceptional circumstances, the Court deemed Wash World’s appellate positions on the two claims to be forfeited. As to the remaining term, the Court found that while Wash World had preserved the issue for appeal, the district court’s interpretation was correct.

On the issue of remittitur, the Federal Circuit first found that Wash World had properly preserved the issue for appeal and that even if it had not, exceptional circumstances would justify reaching the merits. The Court stated that it could discern the precise damages the jury awarded based on convoyed sales, and that the requirements for lost profits on such sales were plainly not satisfied.

The Federal Circuit explained that entitlement to lost profits for convoyed sales exists only where the unpatented products (e.g., dryers sold together with a patented car wash system) and the patented product together constitute a “functional unit,” like parts of a complete machine. The Court found that no evidence in the record could support such a finding and that damages awarded for sales of the unpatented products were thus improper. The Court further rejected Belanger’s argument that the jury’s return of a general verdict insulated the award from further scrutiny. The Court noted that based on the evidence presented, it was overwhelmingly likely that the jury’s verdict included the impermissible damages for convoyed sales. Therefore, the Federal Circuit instructed the district court on remand to remit $2.6 million in damages corresponding to sales of the unpatented components.



read more

The Clear and Unmistakable Standard for Applying Prosecution Disclaimer

by | Apr 3, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that a district court misconstrued claim terms based on a misapplication of the clear and unequivocal disavowal standard and vacated its noninfringement decision. Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed Inc., Abiomed R&D, Inc., Abiomed Europe GMBH, Case No. 23-2045 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2025) (Reyna, Taranto, Cunningham, JJ.)

Maquet owns a patent related to a system that provides greater precision in deploying a blood pump to a patient’s circulatory system. The district court construed three patent terms. The district court construed the term “guide mechanism comprising a lumen” to include a negative limitation that the guidewire lumen “is not distal to the cannula.” The court justified this limitation by citing to the prosecution history of a related patent where Maquet disclaimed the broader claim by merely accepting the examiner’s proposed revisions. The district court also construed both guide wire terms in two other claims to include another negative limitation: “the guide wire does not extend through the free space in between the rotor blades.” The district court similarly justified this negative limitation by citing to the parent patent’s prosecution history, finding that Maquet had given up a broader version of the claim. The district court’s construction effectively limited the scope of Maquet’s claims to exclude the accused products, and the parties stipulated to the entry of a final appealable judgment of noninfringement. Maquet appealed.

Maquet argued that the district court erred in its construction of the three terms by misapplying the law of prosecution disclaimer. The Federal Circuit agreed, finding that the district court incorrectly relied on Maquet’s prosecution history to reach its conclusions on claim construction. The district court cited to an amendment made in a different (but related) patent prosecution and a different claim. The Federal Circuit explained that although the prosecution history of a related patent may be relevant, the claim limitations in the two applications must be similar in order for the prosecution disclaimer doctrine to apply. Here, the Court found that the amendment in the related patent was not sufficiently similar to the limitation at issue to constitute a disclaimer for the claim at issue. The related case claim did not claim a guide mechanism, nor did it require the lumen be in a specific position. The Federal Circuit found that the district court erred in its construction by improperly applying prosecution disclaimer.

The Federal Circuit also determined that the district court erred in its construction of the guide wire claim terms by applying prosecution disclaimer and interpreting a restriction on their scope. The Court found that while the prosecution history of the parent patent’s claims was sufficiently similar and thus relevant, Maquet did not disavow either claim’s scope during the relevant prosecution. The Court noted that mere silence in response to a notice of allowance typically does not rise to clear and unmistakable claim disavowal. The Court also observed that statements made during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding may be used to support a [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Get a Grip: Not All Cords Have Handles

by | Mar 20, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement because the district court improperly narrowed a claim term during its construction. IQRIS Technologies LLC v. Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. et al., Case No. 2023-2062 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2025) (Lourie, Linn, Stoll, JJ.)

IQRIS sued Point Black and National Molding for infringing its patents related to “quick release systems on tactical vests.” The patent claim vests include a “pull cord.” When pulled, the pull cord causes releasable hooks to disengage, detaching the front and rear portions of the vest. The defendants moved for summary judgment of noninfringement, arguing that the claimed “pull cord” is “a cord on the exterior of the ballistic garment grasped by a user that is capable of disengaging the releasable fastener or releasable hook when a user pulls on the pull cord.” IQRIS argued that the term should be construed as “a component which, when put into tension, can result in activating the releasable fastener.”

The district court construed “pull cord” as a “cord that can be directly pulled by a user to disengage a releasable fastener or releasable hook,” a construction that excluded cords with a handle. The district court found that one of the accused products featured a “trigger manifold” that enabled the user to apply “indirect force to [an] internal wire by applying a direct force to the trigger.” As a result, the district court determined that no reasonable jury could find infringement for that product. For another product, the district court found summary judgment to be appropriate because to rule otherwise, the accused vest would improperly encompass prior art criticized in the “background of the invention” portion of the patent specification. The specification criticized prior art having “cutaway vests with ‘handle’ release systems.”

IQRIS appealed. The Federal Circuit considered whether the district court correctly restricted “pull cord” to cords that are “directly pulled by a user.” The Court found that the claim language, which made no reference to “who or what pulls,” did not distinguish between direct and indirect pulling. Citing the patent specification, the Federal Circuit disagreed with the lower court’s interpretation, noting that the specification referred to a directly pulled element as a “pull cord” but an indirectly pulled element as just a “cord.” The Court noted that even though all disclosed embodiments depicted a directly pulled pull cord, “our precedent counsels against reading this requirement into the claims when the claims do not expressly require as much.”

The Federal Circuit next considered whether the proper construction of the term “pull cord” excluded cords with handles. The Court found that “nothing in the claim language, specification, or prosecution history supports this construction.” The claim language was “silent about the structure of the pull cord,” and the specification “suggest[ed] otherwise because each of the figures depicts a circular ball at the end of the pull cord[], suggesting that the inventors contemplated pull cords with handles.” While the specification criticized the cutaway [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES