Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

Phillips v. AWH: Practical Pointers on the Use of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence

The Federal Circuit's <i>en banc</i> decision in <i>Phillips v. AWH Corp.</i>, 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005), provides a reminder, for patent prosecution attorneys and patent litigators alike, of the types of evidence that can be used to support a patent claim construction. In short, intrinsic evidence ' namely, the claim language, specification and prosecution history ' remains the primary source materials for interpreting patent claims. On the other hand, extrinsic evidence ' namely, dictionaries, treatises and expert testimony ' may not have the same persuasive status previously accorded by the Federal Circuit's decision in <i>Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc.</i>, 308 F.3d 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Nonetheless, extrinsic evidence retains its role in helping to explain the meaning of claim terms as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Extrinsic evidence also can be useful to explain the "context" of the invention that informs any claim construction.

21 minute readFebruary 01, 2006 at 03:06 PM
By
Jonathan S. Caplan
Mary W. Richardson
Phillips v. AWH: Practical Pointers on the Use of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evidence

The Federal Circuit's en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.

This premium content is locked for LawJournalNewsletters subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

Already have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Continue Reading

The volume and sophistication of work hitting law firm marketing departments is accelerating. That moves the burden from responding to being ready: ready with differentiated positioning, ready with competitive intelligence, ready to get a compelling pitch to the right client before a formal process even begins. That requires more sophisticated output, produced faster, by teams that are already stretched past capacity.

April 01, 2026

The annals of copyright decisions could provide a reasonably representative catalog of what our culture has been up to over the past 200 years. A Feb. 3 decision from the Southern District of New York is a case in point. It involves a sex-trafficking conspiracy, Tweets attacking a troubled crypto firm, and a claimed transfer of copyright ownership through a restitution order in a criminal case, all over an undercurrent of competing First Amendment and victim-privacy concerns.

April 01, 2026

Matthew McConaughey secured eight federal trademark registrations covering his voice and iconic catchphrases in a novel legal strategy aimed at combating AI’s unauthorized use of his voice and likeness. The move signals an important evolution in the power dynamics between talent/brands and the companies providing generative AI tools.

April 01, 2026