Claims Encompass Embodiments Described In The Specification Unless Precluded By Prosecution History
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.06.08
Where claims can reasonably be interpreted to include a specific embodiment, it is incorrect to construe the claims to exclude that embodiment, unless there is probative evidence of disclaimer or estoppel during prosecution of the patent, a Federal Circuit panel decides in Oatey Co., v. IPS Corp. (No. 2007-1214; January 30, 2008).
Oatey owns a patent on a washing machine outlet box, comprising a housing with a bottom wall and first and second juxtaposed drain ports in the bottom wall, and a common tailpiece for both drain ports extending from the bottom wall. The lower court construed the claimed drain ports to mean two separate identifiable physical elements that are adjacent each other. This construction excluded the IPS outlet box, which has a single opening divided by a wall in the attached tailpiece.
The panel vacates and remands the judgment of non-infringement, concluding that the claims include an oblong opening in the bottom wall with a divider in the tailpiece. IPS argued that such construction encompasses the prior art, having a single drain port. The panel disagrees, because the specification explicitly discloses two drain ports defined by one opening in conjunction with the divider, and nothing in the prosecution precludes such construction.
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.27.25
Federal Circuit Resolves Circuit Split on Scope of IPR Estoppel
As part of the 2012 America Invents Act, statutory estoppel was included to balance the interests of patent owners and patent challengers following an inter partes review (“IPR”). Estoppel prevents an IPR petitioner from later asserting in court that a claim “is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” during the IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). As applied, estoppel prevents petitioners from later relying in district court or in ITC proceedings on most patents or printed publications – the limited bases upon which petitioner can rely in an IPR. But a question remained, and contradictory district court decisions arose, as to whether petitioners would be estopped from relying on a prior art commercial product (known as “device art,” which could not itself have been raised in the IPR) even if a printed publication describing the product (i.e. a patent or technical manual) was available and presumably could have been raised.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 05.27.25
U.S. Departments of State and Treasury Issue Immediate Sanctions Relief for Syria
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.23.25
Executive Order Seeks Most-Favored-Nation Drug Pricing and HHS Announces Price Targets
Client Alert | 4 min read | 05.22.25
Opportunities for Procurement on the Horizon as UK Concludes Free Trade Agreement With India
