Follow Us

Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Intellectual Property Patent Licensing and Transactions Patent Litigation

Federal Circuit Analyzes Specification and Prosecution History Claim Language Usage

University of Massachusetts v. L’Oréal

Absent an express disclaimer or special definition of how a term is to be interpreted, it can be frustrating to get a court to reject the plain and ordinary meaning of claim language read in a vacuum, based on the subtleties of how a term is used in a patent or its prosecution history.

X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Everyone knows that you interpret a patent’s claims in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history. However, absent an express disclaimer or special definition of how a term is to be interpreted, it can be frustrating to get a court to reject the plain and ordinary meaning of claim language read in a vacuum, based on the subtleties of how a term is used in a patent or its prosecution history. The technology of patent examples can be complicated. The reasoning of why an amendment was made to overcome art can be elusive. Many courts would much rather look at a dictionary or textbook definition. The more nuanced analysis is often quite complex from either a scientific or patent prosecution context.

This premium content is locked for The Intellectual Property Strategist subscribers only

Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW PRACTITIONERS.
  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical analysis of developments in patent, copyright and trademark law
  • Tap into expert guidance from top intellectual property lawyers and experts

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Subscribe Now For Unlimited Access

Read These Next