Free
Message: Doc 297

I just re-read Defendants’ Claim Construction Brief (Doc 297) regarding the two crucial claim construction terms (paragraph V.B. on page 13 and V.C. on page 17). I found that they relied almost exclusively on the patent prosecution history to make their arguments. I think this is a good sign for EDIG.

In my opinion, though the prosecution history of a patent should be considered by the court when construing claim terms, it should not have the same weight of consideration as the claim language and specification within the 4 corners of the patent.

In construing claims, the analytical focus must begin and remain centered on the language of the claims themselves, for it is that language that the patentee chose to use to ‘particularly point[ ] out and distinctly claim[ ] the subject matter which the patentee regards as his invention.’” Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2); see Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’”) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Thus, “[t]he starting point for any claim construction must be the claims themselves.” Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

This bodes well for EDIG in my opinion as the claim language wholly supports our claim constructions as described in EDIG’s Claim Construction Brief (Doc 296). Sure hope Judge Krieger agrees. ;)

Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply