1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Mining Law Monitor - Volume 20, Issue 2 - (Summer 2003)

Mining Law Monitor - Volume 20, Issue 2 - (Summer 2003)

Client Alert | less than 1 min read | 08.11.03

  • "Cuban Embargo May Hold Hidden Perils for Unwary Mining Companies," Co-Authors: Jeff Snyder and Jim Reed.
  • "Arguments Over NBCWA Article I Reach Apogee," Co-Authors: Tom Gies and Glenn Grant.
  • "New FCC Rules Affect Some Mine Radio Systems," Author: Bill Wallace.
  • "SMCRA Roundup," Co-Authors: Tim Means and Michael Klise.
  • "The Safe Explosives Act: Homeland Security Comes to the Mining Industry," Co-Authors: Tim Biddle and Ed Green.

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25

Defining Claim Terms by Implication: Lexicography Lessons from Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims.  Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution.  Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication....