1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Absent Special Definition, Dictionary-Based Ordinary Meaning Controls Construction of "Computer" and "Computer System" Terms

Absent Special Definition, Dictionary-Based Ordinary Meaning Controls Construction of "Computer" and "Computer System" Terms

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.11.08

In a third appeal involving a patent directed to a method of screening data for detecting computer viruses, a Federal Circuit panel in Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assoc. Int'l, Inc. (Nos. 2007-1201,-1239; April 11, 2008) reverses a summary judgment of non-infringement of the asserted claims because the district court erred in its construction of four claim terms--two of which are "computer" and "computer system"-- but affirms the lower court's decision to dismiss a laches defense, a challenge to inventorship and a charge of inequitable conduct.

The district court construed the terms "computer" and "computer system" to mean a personal computer or workstation based upon the patent's preferred embodiment directed to a single computer that constitutes a complete description of the computer system. In addition, the district court relied upon expert testimony. Symantec's proposed construction that these terms mean any combination of hardware, software, documentation and manual procedures that are combined to perform a specific function, including a system of multiple, interconnected computers, was rejected.

The panel finds nothing in the patent's specification--"the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term"--that would limit those terms to a single computer. The terms are not expressly defined in the specification, and there is nothing to suggest that a special definition of these terms was adopted. Although, as observed in a footnote, the preferred embodiment uses a single computer, the specification does not consistently refer to the invention as involving a single computer. The expert testimony that did not identify the accepted meaning of these terms to one skilled in the art is considered unhelpful. Instead, ordinary meaning is deemed to govern the construction of these terms, and that meaning is discerned by reference to the definition found in the Dictionary of Computing at the time of the invention. That definition leads the panel to conclude that the ordinary meaning of those terms was not limited to a single, stand-alone computer or workstation.

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...

View All Insights