CAFC Says District Court’s Claim Construction Rendered Dependent Claims ‘Meaningless’

“If a dependent claim reads on a particular embodiment of the claimed invention, the corresponding independent claim must cover that embodiment as well… Otherwise, the dependent claims would have no scope and thus be meaningless.” – Circuit Judge William Curtis Bryson

Federal CircuitOn April 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp. clarifying how U.S. district courts handling claim construction are to construe a patent’s independent claims in light of limitations included in dependent claims. While the Federal Circuit found that the District of Massachusetts was correct to give meaning to the term “fastening stem” by looking to uses of “fastening” and “stem” within the patent, the appellate court vacated and remanded a stipulated judgment of non-infringement, as the district court’s construction of certain independent claim terms would render superfluous other claim terms from dependent claims.

District Court Construes ‘Fastening Stem’ as Multiple-Piece Apparatus Only

The patent-at-issue in this case is U.S. Patent No. 9564281, Fuse End Cap with Crimpable Terminal. It claims a fuse end cap that provides an electrical current between a fuse and a conductor, the fuse end cap comprising a mounting cuff defining a first cavity that receives an electrically insulating end of a fuse body; a terminal crimped around a conductor and retaining the conductor within a second cavity; and a fastening stem that extends from the mounting cuff and into the second cavity. This fuse end cap for maintaining electrical connections within devices improves upon prior art fuse end caps, which used methods of attaching wires that generate excess heat and made those wires susceptible to disconnection from the fuse.

The “fastening stem” claim limitations were added to independent claims 1 and 10 of the ‘281 patent as it was being prosecuted at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to overcome a patent examiner rejection under Section 102 for novelty. When those amendments were accepted, the patent examiner rejoined dependent claims 8, 9, 19 and 20, which were previously removed as they were directed to “machined end cap” and “stamped end cap” embodiments included in the ‘281 patent’s specification. Those embodiments were restricted from the claims under a restriction requirement issued by the patent examiner and Littelfuse’s prosecution of the ‘281 patent focused on claims covering an “assembled end cap” embodiment.

The present appeal stems from patent infringement litigation filed by Littelfuse against Mersen, a rival electronic circuitry and components firm. During the course of claim construction, the Massachusetts district court construed claim terms related to the “fastening stem” limitation in such a way that claims 1 and 10 only covered a multi-piece apparatus and not a single-piece, unitary embodiment of the claimed fuse end cap. On appeal, both Littelfuse and Mersen made it clear that their joint stipulation of non-infringement was premised on the district court’s determination that claims 1 and 10 only covered a multi-piece apparatus.

CAFC: Cannot Give Meaning to Independent Claim Term That Renders Dependent Claim Meaningless

However, in applying the Phillips standard, which requires courts construing claim terms to give those terms the meaning that is customary to persons of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), the Federal Circuit disagreed with the district court’s determinations that claims 1 and 10 couldn’t cover a single-piece apparatus. This conclusion was informed in large part by the structure of dependent claims 8, 9, 19 and 20, each of which requires that an end cap is formed “from a single, contiguous piece of conductive material.”

By definition, an independent claim is broader than a claim that depends from it, so if a dependent claim reads on a particular embodiment of the claimed invention, the corresponding independent claim must cover that embodiment as well… Otherwise, the dependent claims would have no scope and thus be meaningless. A claim construction that leads to that result is generally disfavored.

While the recitation of a single-piece apparatus in dependent claims 8, 9, 19 and 20 were persuasive evidence that independent claims 1 and 10 covered single- and multiple-piece apparati, Mersen argued to the Federal Circuit that the doctrine of claim differentiation doesn’t require the court to reject constructions that render certain claims superfluous if those constructions are consistent with the teachings in the specification. However, the Federal Circuit found that Mersen’s construction would render the dependent claims meaningless, and further the appellate court found that Littelfuse’s construction had support in the patent’s specification.

Nothing in ‘281 Patent’s Specification Limits Claims to a Multiple-Piece Apparatus

The district court had resolved the inconsistency between its construction of claims 1 and 10 and their dependent claims by reasoning that the patent examiner rejoined the dependent claims under a misunderstanding as to what those claims covered. But the Federal Circuit noted that the patent examiner’s decision to rejoin those claims noted that dependent claims 8, 9, 19 and 20 “require all the limitations of” the independent claims approved by the examiner. While the detailed description of the ‘281 patent only speaks of a “fastening stem” in terms of the preferred “assembly end cap” embodiment, nothing in the description limited the “fastening stem” to a single-piece apparatus.

“One can envision a stem that projects from the side of the mounting cuff even in an embodiment in which the fuse end cap is formed from a single piece of material,” the Federal Circuit found. The Federal Circuit further nixed Mersen’s argument that Littelfuse had waived any argument that amended claim 1, a generic claim including within its scope the embodiments subject to the patent examiner’s restriction requirement, was generic of the separate embodiments. Instead, the appellate court found evidence that Littelfuse had consistently argued that claims 1 and 10 covered both single- and multiple-piece apparati.

While claims 1 and 10 were not confined to multiple-piece apparati, the Federal Circuit did approve of the district court’s method of defining “fastening stem” by looking to the ‘281 patent’s usage of the terms “fastening” and “stem.” In this way, the district court reasonably concluded that the plain language of the claims suggested that the stem must attach or join, and most of the district court’s construction of the phrase “a fastening stem that extends from the mounting cuff and into the second cavity of the terminal that receives the conductor” was proper. “Because claims 1 and 10 are not limited to a multi-piece apparatus, the fastening stem is not required to attach the mounting cuff to the terminal, and to that extent the district court’s construction was incorrect,” the Federal Circuit ruled.


Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of

Join the Discussion

No comments yet.