claim construction Archives

claim construction

Corresponding disclosed structure? Only what’s necessary to perform a recited function

by Tyler Jackson | Mar 26, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the disclosure of an added function in the specification of a patent should not affect the structure necessary to meet the recited function in a Section 112(f) claim element. Gramm v. Deere & Co., Case No. 24-1598 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 11, 2026) (Lourie, Reyna, Cunningham, JJ.)

Richard Gramm exclusively licensed Reaper Solutions rights to a patent directed to an apparatus for keeping the header of a crop harvester at a certain height above the ground as the harvester moves across a field. Gramm and Reaper sued Deere & Co., alleging that specific Deere header sensor kits infringed the patent. Deere challenged the validity of the patent in a partially successful inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, leaving one independent claim and some of the dependent claims asserted.

In connection with claim construction during the IPR proceeding, Reaper and Deere disputed the meaning of “control means” in the independent claim. At issue was whether the specification’s discussion of the “head controller 20” was sufficiently definite corresponding disclosed structure for the (§112(f)) means-plus-function claim element to satisfy the definiteness requirement of §112 (b). The function of the claimed “head controller” was to provide electrical control signals to another feature in the claimed apparatus to control the lateral position of the corn header and its height above the ground or soil. Deere argued that “head controller 20” was not sufficiently definite since it amounted to a general-purpose computer or processor, thus requiring disclosure of code or an algorithm to avoid being indefinite.

In 1997, the patent’s priority date, there were only three commercially available head controllers used in Deere combines: Dial-A-Matic Versions #1, #2, and #3. Deere argued that only Versions #2 and #3 could constitute corresponding structure for the “head controller 20,” as only those versions could control both header height and lateral position. Because Versions #2 and #3 used microprocessors to control header height, Deere argued that the patent specification was required to disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. In the alternative, Deere argued that the district court should hold Reaper to its argument in the IPR proceeding that the corresponding disclosed structure was the specific controller incorporated into Deere’s Dial-A-Matic Version #1, which “controlled header height through a series of diodes, switches and integrated circuits rather than a microprocessor.”

The district court found the independent claim indefinite and reasoned that the specification’s reference to Dial-A-Matic Versions #2 and #3 triggered the need for a disclosure of a general-purpose computer or microprocessor that the patent failed to satisfy. The district court accepted Deere’s argument that the specification did not disclose Dial-A-Matic Version #1 as a corresponding structure because it could not perform the function of controlling the lateral position of the corn header. Reaper appealed.

The Federal Circuit agreed with Reaper that the district court erred by identifying a corresponding structure for “control means” beyond what was necessary to perform the claimed function, leading the district court to incorrectly [...]

Continue Reading

Separately recited structures must be separately present in accused device

by Ashley K. Justice | Mar 19, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained (again) that when a claim separately recites multiple structural limitations, infringement requires separate corresponding structures. A single component that sequentially or multifunctionally performs the claimed functions is not enough. Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc., Case No. 24-2001 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2026) (Lourie, Hughes, Freeman, JJ.)

Magnolia Medical sued Kurin for infringement of two patents directed to devices designed to reduce contamination of blood samples by skin microbes during venipuncture. The claimed devices divert the initial portion of blood, which is most susceptible to contamination, into a separate reservoir before collecting the remainder of the sample. Kurin manufactures the Kurin Lock, which separates the initial blood sample from the remaining sample using a porous plug. That plug initially functions as a vent, allowing air to escape, and then expands as it absorbs blood, closing its pores and forming a seal.

The representative claim of one of the asserted patents recites a device comprising a fluid reservoir “at least partially defined by a seal member and a vent.” The representative claim of the other patent recites a “diverter.”

During claim construction, the district court construed “diverter” as a means‑plus‑function term under § 112(f). Because the Kurin Lock lacked a corresponding diverter structure, the parties stipulated noninfringement of that patent.

The district court did not expressly construe the “seal” and “vent” limitations of the other patent at Markman. At trial, however, the jury found that Kurin infringed that patent.

Kurin moved for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), arguing that it did not infringe because the Kurin Lock did not include separate seal and vent structures. Instead, a single porous plug performed both functions at separate times. The district court agreed and granted JMOL of no infringement. Magnolia appealed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting Magnolia’s argument that the district court had improperly adopted a new claim construction at the JMOL stage. While courts may not introduce a materially different construction after trial, they may elaborate on what is inherent in the plain and ordinary meaning of a claim. The Federal Circuit reiterated its prior holdings that when a claim separately lists structural limitations, the plain and ordinary meaning requires separate corresponding structures. Here, the district court merely clarified that requirement, it did not change the construction.

The Federal Circuit found that the asserted claim required separate structures. The use of “comprising,” the introduction of “a” before both “seal” and “vent,” and the use of “and” between them all pointed to distinct components. The specification further reinforced that the seal and vent were described as separate structures.

The Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s construction of “diverter” as a means plus function limitation. Although the claim did not use the word “means,” Kurin successfully showed that the term failed to recite sufficient structure, triggering § 112(f).

Practice note: This case is a reminder that when multiple structural elements are separately recited in a claim, courts are likely to require [...]

Continue Reading

The meaning is plain as day: Just follow the grammar

by Tyler Jackson | Feb 26, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and vacated a decision by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, explaining that the Board failed to consider common textual modifier language when applying the plain meaning to a disputed claim term. Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, Case No. 24-1541 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2026) (Moore, C.J.; Dyk, Taranto, JJ.)

DivX sued Netflix for infringing its patent directed to systems and methods for streaming partly encrypted media content. The patent uses encryption/decryption, a Digital Rights Management (DRM) technique, to protect streams of media content from unauthorized access or copying. This technique requires that cryptographic information be relayed to the playback device for users to watch streamed media content. The patent explains that encrypting parts of streamed media decreases the resources needed for encryption/decryption and provides the playback device with information on the portions that are encrypted and “common” decryption information.

Netflix petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of all claims on the basis of obviousness. The Board rejected DivX’s proposed construction of limitation [l] of the representative claim: “locating encryption information that identifies encrypted portions of frames of video within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video.” DivX’s argued that the “encryption information” must be located “within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video.” The Board deemed DivX’s proposed claim construction as “too restrictive,” concluding that the claim suggested that the encryption information just needed to identify encrypted portions of frames that themselves were “within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video.”

In its final written decision, the Board agreed with Netflix that a person of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the asserted prior art but held that the artisan would not have reasonably expected success in combining the prior art and that therefore Netflix did not establish obviousness of the challenged claims.

The Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision on appeal and remanded the matter. On remand, the Board again concluded that Netflix did not demonstrate obviousness but this time accepted DivX’s originally proposed claim construction. Netflix appealed.

The Federal Circuit found the Board’s construction of limitation [l] was erroneous, agreeing with Netflix that limitation [l] was taught by the asserted prior art combination. Using the plain language doctrine, the Court found that limitation [l] was susceptible to two interpretations: “the modifier ‘within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video’ could modify either ‘encrypted portions of frames of video’ or ‘encryption information.’” Accordingly, the Court relied on the principle that where commas or other textual signals are not used, it is presumed that the modifier is tied to the nearest available semantically plausible modificand. The Court determined that only the “encrypted portions of frames of video” needed to be “within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video.” The Federal Circuit also determined that the context of the claim itself, the specification, and the prosecution history supported the construction that [...]

Continue Reading

Here’s an abstract idea: Patent eligibility depends on what is claimed, not unclaimed disclosure

by Hannah Hurley | Feb 19, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s rejection of Netflix’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 challenge, finding that claims directed to tailoring content specifications for wireless devices were patent ineligible. GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., Case Nos. 24-1669; -1744 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2026) (Prost, Clevenger, Taranto, JJ.)

GoTV sued Netflix for direct and induced infringement of three related patents directed to server-based tailoring of content for wireless devices. The district court dismissed the induced infringement claims and rejected Netflix’s § 101 challenge. A jury found infringement of one of the asserted patents and awarded $2.5 million in damages. Netflix appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s indefiniteness ruling as to a key term of the representative patents and adopted GoTV’s proposed construction of that claim term: “discrete low level rendering command.” Based on its construction, the Court concluded that the asserted claims were directed to an abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept under Alice. The Court concluded that the claims merely recited the abstract idea of using a generic template tailored to a user’s device constraints and relied on conventional computer and network functions without specifying a concrete technological improvement. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims failed both steps of the Alice framework and were invalid under § 101.

Although its § 101 holding resolved the case in Netflix’s favor, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment of no inducement and its denial of GoTV’s motion for a new trial on damages, explaining that GoTV had presented substantial arguments on those issues, before directing entry of final judgment for Netflix.

Practice note: The Federal Circuit noted that the ineligibility analysis depends on the claim language at issue, not whether there may be a patent eligible invention disclosed in the specification. Although the prosecution history may be intrinsic evidence for claim construction, recitation of the problems faced by the inventor and the inventive solution cannot be relied on to argue unclaimed details of the invention to render an abstract idea patent eligible.

Method steps must be done in order where there is logical dependency

by Art Dykhuis | Feb 12, 2026 | Patents

In a second appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s summary judgment of noninfringement based on an implicit ordering of steps in a method claim after disagreeing with the lower court on another basis for noninfringement. Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, Case No. 24-1092 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2026) (Chen, Prost, Wallach, JJ.)

At the district court, Sound View asserted an expired patent against Hulu’s use of a central content server connected to end users through intermediate edge servers. The asserted claim recites downloading streaming content from a buffer in a helper server to an end user while concurrently retrieving more streaming content from a content server.

The district court issued a decision in favor of Hulu, which Sound View appealed. In that first appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s ruling, based on the district court’s negative claim construction.

On remand, the district court determined Hulu did not infringe, finding that the claimed method requires the steps of “receiving a request” and “allocating a buffer” to be performed in sequence. Since Hulu did not perform these claimed steps in order, the district court found there was no infringement. Sound View appealed.

The claim-at-issue recites:

Source: Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, Case No. 24-1092 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2026), Slip Op. at 4.

The Federal Circuit reasoned that the phrase “requested SM object” in the buffer-allocation step grammatically and logically depended on the prior step of “receiving a request,” because an object cannot be “requested” until a request has occurred. The Court explained that “‘requested’ is not only a grammatical descriptor, but also is a status indicator reflecting a completed action – the receiving of a request.”

The Federal Circuit applied precedent on implicit ordering of method steps and noted that “[o]ur caselaw on implicit ordering does not help Sound View, as it does not require a finding that the performance of the claimed steps would be inoperable if the steps are not followed in the order they appear in the claim” (emphasis added). The Court explained that the “logical” dependency between the method steps mandates that the request-receiving step precede buffer allocation. Because there was no dispute that the accused systems performed these steps in a different order, the Court affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement.

Equivalents still requires all elements be met, injunctive relief still governed by eBay factors

by Jake B. Vallen | Jan 8, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a mixed ruling in a dispute over patents covering child car seat technology, explaining that infringement under the doctrine of equivalents requires an equivalent for each and every claim element, and that a grant of injunctive relief requires proof of all eBay factors. On the issue of willfulness, the panel majority held that the exclusion of exculpatory evidence was a reversable error. Wonderland Switzerland AG v. Evenflo Co., Inc., Case Nos. 23-2043; -2233; -2326 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2025) (Moore, Prost, JJ.) (Reyna, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

Wonderland owns two patents directed to convertible child car seats. Wonderland alleged that Evenflo’s four-in-one convertible seat models infringed its patents. A jury found infringement of one patent under the doctrine of equivalents and infringement of the other patent both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents. The district court entered judgment and permanently enjoined Evenflo from activities related to both patents. Evenflo appealed.

Evenflo challenged the finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents for the first patent, arguing that its accused seats lacked the claimed “locking mechanism for selectively detachably connecting” the seat back to the seat assembly. The Federal Circuit agreed, finding that no reasonable jury could find equivalence because the claim “plainly requires the seat back to include the components for selective detachability,” whereas Evenflo’s seats “simply include a stationary metal bar” and all locking components reside on the seat assembly. As a result, the Court concluded “there c[ould] be no equivalence as a matter of law.”

Evenflo also argued that the district court abused its discretion in permanently enjoining activities relating to both patents. Regarding the first patent, the Federal Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion in granting a permanent injunction because Wonderland expressly declined to request such relief. Wonderland argued the grant of a permanent injunction as to the first patent was harmless error because it had the same “practical effects” as the injunction for the second patent. The Court disagreed, explaining that the injunction could affect Evenflo’s release of other products, which may not necessarily infringe the second patent.

Regarding the second patent, the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion in granting a permanent injunction because it relied solely on speculative and conclusory evidence that Wonderland suffered, and would continue to suffer, irreparable harm or injury that could not be compensated with monetary damages. The Court explained that the district court failed to identify evidence that Wonderland’s partner lost sales or market share to Evenflo rather than other competitors, or that the partner’s reputation or product distinctiveness was harmed. The Court also noted that testimony that a lost car seat sale “naturally leads” to loss of other product sales was based on conjecture without supporting data. Finally, the Court found that statements that consumers “might think” technology problems existed if Evenflo’s product failed were deemed speculative and insufficient to establish irreparable harm.

Wonderland cross-appealed, asserting [...]

Continue Reading

From ‘best’ to bust: Multiple methods to determine “optimal/best” render claims indefinite

by Lauren Hong | Dec 4, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s judgment of invalidity and grant of summary judgment of noninfringement, concluding that even if excluded portions of expert testimony were considered, the judgments would remain proper. Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. MediaPointe, Inc., AMHC, Inc., Case No. 24-1571 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 25, 2025) (Taranto, Stoll, Cunningham, JJ.)

AMHC owns two patents that address systems and methods for efficiently routing streamed media content over the internet using an “intelligent distribution network” that centrally manages requests for streamed media from geographically dispersed users to mitigate bandwidth problems inherent in transmitting large volumes of data. Akamai sued AMHC and its subsidiary MediaPointe (collectively, MediaPointe) seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement for both patents. MediaPointe counterclaimed for infringement of both patents, after which Akamai counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of invalidity of all claims of both patents.

At the claim construction stage, the district court determined that claim limitations using “optimal/best” language were invalid for indefiniteness because the specification failed to provide a procedure or boundaries to determine what is “optimal/best.” For the remaining asserted claims, the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement. In doing so, the district court:

Excluded as untimely presented key portions of MediaPointe’s technical expert’s testimony, without which MediaPointe could not reasonably establish infringement
Ruled that even if the testimony was considered, the record entitled Akamai to summary judgment of noninfringement.

MediaPointe appealed.

MediaPointe contended that the claims using “optimal/best” language were not indefinite, arguing that the requirement to use measurable performance data (specifically “trace-route results”) provided an objective standard. The Federal Circuit disagreed, finding that this requirement did not supply a reasonably clear and exclusive definition of “optimal/best.” The Court explained that the “trace-route results” requirement was not sufficiently clear because multiple methods could be used to determine compliance, and the patent offered no guidance on which measures to apply.

MediaPointe also challenged the summary judgment of noninfringement for the remaining claims, arguing that the district court applied an improperly narrow construction instead of the ordinary meaning of the disputed limitation. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, finding that a skilled artisan would not have reasonably understood the claim language more broadly and that the district court’s construction was correct in light of the patent’s context. The Court concluded that because there was no evidence that Akamai’s system met this narrower limitation, even considering the excluded expert testimony, there was no triable issue of fact and no reasonable jury could find infringement.

The Federal Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s judgment.

Well, well, well: Indefinite claims turn out to be a typo

by Dexter Hamilton | Nov 20, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court ruling that invalidated patent claims for indefiniteness, finding that the disputed language was a minor clerical error. Canatex Completion Solutions, Inc. v. Wellmatics, LLC, et al., Case No. 24-1466 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 2025) (Moore, Prost, Taranto, JJ.)

Canatex sued Wellmatics and several GR Energy entities for infringing its patent directed to a releasable connection for a downhole tool string. The patent covers a two-part device used in oil and gas wells that allows operators to disconnect and retrieve the upper part of the tool string while leaving the lower part in the well if it becomes stuck.

The patent’s claims, abstract, and specification include the phrase “the connection profile of the second part.” During claim construction, the defendants argued that the phrase lacked an antecedent basis, rendering the claims indefinite. Canatex responded that the phrase should have read “the connection profile of the first part” and that a skilled artisan would immediately recognize the error. Canatex asked the district court to construe the phrase accordingly.

The district court disagreed, finding that the “pervasiveness of the error” in both the claims and the specification suggested that the error “was an intentional drafting choice and not an error at all.” The district court added that Canatex’s failure to seek correction from the United States Patent and Trademark Office suggested that the error was neither minor nor evident on the face of the patent. The district court found all asserted claims invalid for indefiniteness. Canatex appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed. The Court found the error obvious and determined that a skilled artisan would recognize only one reasonable correction, which was changing “second” to “first.” The Court characterized the mistake as a minor clerical or typographical error and rejected arguments that alternative interpretations were plausible. The Court emphasized that its conclusion was consistent with the intrinsic evidence.

Pick a lane: USPTO Director nixes IPR for inconsistent claim construction positions

by Lauren Hong | Nov 20, 2025 | Patents

The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) vacated a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision instituting an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding after finding that the petitioner advanced inconsistent claim construction positions before the Board and in parallel district court litigation without adequate justification. Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2025-00340 (PTAB Nov. 5, 2025) (Stewart, USPTO Dir.)

Intellectual Ventures II LLC (IV), the patent owner, requested director review of the Board’s decision granting institution, arguing that the decision should be reversed because Tesla, Inc., the petitioner, failed to adequately explain why it advanced inconsistent claim construction positions before the district court and the Board.

In the district court, Tesla opposed IV’s plain and ordinary meaning construction of the claim limitation “generating said target feature information from said data statistics” in independent claim 1. Tesla argued that the limitation was indefinite because a person of ordinary skill in the art could not determine its meaning and scope with reasonable certainty. In contrast, before the Board, Tesla asserted that “no claim term requires express construction” and that the challenged claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.

IV contended that Tesla’s justification (that it was statutorily prohibited from raising indefiniteness challenges in an IPR) was insufficient to explain the divergent positions. While the Board’s rules do not categorically prohibit petitioners from taking inconsistent claim construction positions across forums, petitioners must explain why those differences are warranted.

The Director agreed with IV, finding Tesla’s rationale inadequate. The Director explained that simply asserting that indefiniteness cannot be raised in an IPR does not explain why a petitioner should be permitted to raise inconsistent invalidity challenges in two forums. In vacating the institution decision, the Director emphasized that permitting such inconsistencies without proper justification would undermine the USPTO’s goal of “providing greater predictability and certainty in the patent system.”

Reframing the claim: Plain and ordinary meaning falls to lexicography

by Lauren Hong | Nov 6, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s construction of a claim, finding that the plain and ordinary meaning of a disputed term was redefined by the patentee under principles of lexicography and use of intrinsic claim construction evidence. Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., et al., Case No. 24-1145 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 27, 2025) (Prost, Reyna, Chen, JJ.)

Aortic sued Edwards Lifesciences for infringing its patents directed toward a transcatheter valve with a frame component. During claim construction, the district court determined that Aortic had acted as its own lexicographer and redefined the term “outer frame” to be “a self-expanding frame,” based on the interchangeable use of the terms “outer frame,” “self-expanding frame,” and “self-expanding outer frame” when referring to the same structure in two embodiments. Based on this construction, the parties stipulated to noninfringement of the asserted patents since Edwards’ accused valve did not have a self-expanding frame. Aortic appealed the judgment of noninfringement, challenging the district court’s construction of the claim term “outer frame.” Aortic appealed.

Aortic contended that “outer frame” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning of “positioned outside” and argued that the specification did not support limiting “outer” to require “self-expanding.” The Federal Circuit disagreed, relying on both lexicographical and specification-based grounds for its construction.

In applying principles of lexicography, the Federal Circuit reasoned that if a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would understand that two claim terms were used consistently and interchangeably throughout a patent specification, those terms may be considered definitionally equivalent. Referring to several examples, the Court observed that Aortic used “outer frame,” “self-expanding frame,” and “self-expanding outer frame” interchangeably throughout the specification when describing the frame, and concluded that “outer frame” was properly construed to require “self-expanding.”

With regard to using the specification as intrinsic claim construction evidence, the Federal Circuit reasoned that the specification consistently described the “outer frame” as a “self-expanding frame” and did not restrict that feature to a particular embodiment. From this, the Court concluded that the absence of any express exception or explanation would lead a POSITA to understand that the valve’s construction required a self-expanding outer frame in all embodiments.

Aortic alternatively argued that Edwards should be judicially estopped from arguing for a construction of “outer frame” that departed from its plain and ordinary meaning. Aortic asserted that Edwards had previously argued before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board that “outer frame” should be defined using its plain and ordinary meaning, but later adopted a contrary position in front of the district court, contending that the term referred only to a “self-expanding frame.” The Federal Circuit disagreed and explained that Aortic failed to sufficiently develop its judicial estoppel argument before the district court. Absent any exceptional circumstances, the Court concluded that Aortic had forfeited the argument.

Finding Aortic’s arguments unpersuasive, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment of noninfringement as to the asserted patents, upholding the district court’s construction of the disputed claim [...]

Continue Reading

Older Posts »

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS