|
Your Words Are
Worth Millions
-
The exact wording of the claims and
the specification of a patent is of critical importance
-
Any ambiguity leaves patent coverage
and validity subject to chance
-
Simple errors or poorly worded
language can result in millions of dollars in lost value
-
District and Federal Circuit Court
records contain many examples of lost patent value as the
result of poor wording. For purposes of illustration, two
such examples are described below.
Chef
America v. Lamb-Weston
-
Chef America accused Lamb-Weston of
infringing its U.S. Patent No. 4,761,290
-
A
representative claim reads:
"A
process for producing a dough product …which comprises …
heating the … dough
to
a temperature
in the range of about 400 ºF to 850 ºF" (emphasis added)
-
It was clear that, despite the
patentee’s inadvertent mis-statement, the dough should only
be heated
at
, not
to
, the specified
temperature; otherwise the dough would burn and the claim
would be inoperative
-
Lamb-Weston does not heat its dough
products to the temperature range specified in Chef
America’s patent and, therefore, does not literally infringe
the claims as construed by the district court.
-
The district court granted a motion
for summary judgment of
non-infringement, and the Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed
-
Both the district court and the
Federal Circuit Court refused to redraft the claim to
preserve its validity
“Thus, in accord with
our settled practice we construe the claim as written, not as
the patentees wish they had written it.”
– Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in
Chef America, Inc. v.
Lamb-Weston, Inc.,
358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Honeywell International v. International Trade Commission
Honeywell
International, Inc. accused Hyosung Corporation of Seoul, Korea
and its American counterpart of importing polyethylene
terephthalate yarns that infringe Honeywell's U.S. Patent No.
5,630,976, in violation of the Tariff Act of 1930.
-
The following is representative of the
disputed portion of Honeywell's claims: “A process for
production of a drawn polyethylene terephthalate yarn …,
comprising: … [steps] … to form a crystalline, partially
oriented yarn with … a melting point elevation of 2°
to 10° C, and …"
-
The written description does not
describe any method by which to determine the melting point
elevation
-
The accused product was analyzed by
four different methods, of which only one, the ball method,
gave a melting point elevation within the claimed range
-
The Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit determined that:
-
The intrinsic record (i.e. the
claims, the written description and the prosecution
history) does not compel a narrowing of the claim
language to any one of the possible definitions
-
The intrinsic record fails to give
any guidance as to what a person of ordinary skill would
understand the claim to require
-
Therefore,
the claims are insolubly ambiguous
and invalid and Hyosung does not infringe.
-- Honeywell
International, Inc., v. International Trade Commission,
341 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
Say What
You Mean
“I seem to
be seeing a lot of what appear to be shorts on the women and not
enough neckties on the men.”
– quoted from a high school
principal’s memo to his staff regarding professional attire
In
response, one of the male teachers appeared for work the next
day wearing five neckties.
In order to
get what you want (for example, appropriate patent coverage for
your inventions), it is important to say what you mean.
Wetzel
Chemistry Consulting,
LLC can assist you in making sure
that your patent applications describe your inventions precisely
and claim them appropriately.
Contact us
to discuss how we can help.
Back to Top |