Plain Language of "At Least One" Does Not Require Two, Despite Disclosures in the Specification to the Contrary
Client Alert | 1 min read | 09.09.08
In Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Medical Technology Inc. (No. 07-1363; Sept. 2, 2008), the Federal Circuit vacates a stipulated judgment of noninfringement due to an "incorrect" claim construction by the district court.
A knee prosthesis patent described the replacement of the lower portion of the femur, including one or both of its rounded projections called condyles. A "unicondylar" prosthesis replaces one condyle; a "bicondylar" prothesis replaces both. The district court construed the term "femoral component including at least one condylar element" as requiring that both condyles in a bicondylar prosthesis meet the geometric requirements of the claim.
Because the plain language of the claim requires only one condylar element, the Federal Circuit rejects the district court's claim construction. Further none of Wright's proffered arguments showed that the term should be interpreted other than by its plain language. First, there is no requirement that every claim be limited to encompass all the advantages or purposes disclosed in the specification, which Wright argued could not be achieved by only one condyle meeting the geometric limitations. Second, although every disclosure of a bicondylar knee in the specification showed two condyles meeting the geometric requirements, this single embodiment, without more, is insufficient to limit the claim. Third, a letter between a prosecuting attorney and a patent applicant reporting on the results on an examiner interview is not part of the prosecution history and, moreover, is of "no value" to the construction of the claim. Finally, the testimony of an inventor of the patent, even if to narrow the scope of the claims and thus against the interest of the inventor, is irrelevant on the issue of claim construction.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 10.10.25
New Post Appeals Mediation Pilot Program
On October 1, 2025, the IRS Independent Office of Appeals launched a two-year pilot program to make Post Appeals Mediation (PAM) more attractive and accessible to taxpayers. See IRS Announcement 2025-10. The new PAM pilot program offers taxpayers the opportunity to be assigned to a new Appeals team, which is otherwise unconnected to the underlying case, who will represent the original Appeals team in the mediation session. The assignment of the new Appeals team does not begin a new appeals process but rather is intended to help facilitate an expedited and impartial look at the underlying case with the goal of further exploring all potential paths to resolution prior to litigation.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 10.09.25
New California Algorithmic Pricing Law Could Have Far Reaching Effects
Client Alert | 5 min read | 10.08.25
California’s AI Transparency Act (CAITA) May be Amended to Regulate Social Media Platforms
Client Alert | 6 min read | 10.08.25
Hacker No Fly Zone: FAA and TSA Propose Cybersecurity Rules for Drone Ecosystem