1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Properly Construed Claim May Not Cover All Embodiments

Properly Construed Claim May Not Cover All Embodiments

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.23.07

In Intamin Ltd. V. Magnetar Technologies, Corp. (No. 05-1546, 1579, April 18, 2007), a Federal Circuit panel vacates part of a district court’s claim construction involving a magnetic braking system for amusement park rides and remands on the issue of non-infringement. On appeal, the parties dispute the district court’s construction of two limitations of the independent claim.

The first limitation involves “an intermediary disposed between adjacent pairs of said plurality of magnets” forming a portion of the brake assembly. The district court construed the term “intermediary” without determining the meaning of “adjacent magnets with alternating polarities”, leaving a question of whether the intermediary can be another magnet, and whether the accused brakes infringe. The panel looks at the understandable meaning of the term and the context of the patent, and finds that “intermediary” can include magnetic substances, but only if “alternating polarity” requires magnets of opposite polarity, a matter to be determined on remand.

The second limitation regards “said at least one conductive rail being adapted to extend the length of the fixed device part”, questioning if “length” refers to the full length of the fixed part, as construed by the district court, or to the orientation of the conductive rail. The specification uses “length” consistently with its meaning as a distance rather than a direction, says the panel. The proper claim construction may result in the claim not covering an embodiment described in the specification, but the patentee may draft different claims to cover different embodiments. The district court was thus correct in recognizing that “length” is not used to refer to direction or orientation.

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights