Posts Tagged: "claim construction"

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Tricam Industries, Inc. in a patent infringement suit brought by Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC. The decision held that Tricam’s ladders did not infringe Little Giant’s patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and that the district court correctly construed the key claim term “cavity.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday issued a precedential decision affirming a district court decision that Sound View Innovations’ multimedia streaming patent claims were not infringed because Hulu’s “accused products do not perform the claim limitations in the required sequence.” The decision was authored by Judge Chen.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday vacated and remanded a district court’s decision in favor of Meta, rejecting the court’s finding that patent owner Adnexus had failed to state a plausible claim for direct infringement. The decision was precedential and authored by Judge Stark, with whom Judges Taranto and Prost joined.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding that Google had failed to prove one claim of a patent directed to CAPTCHA-like technology unpatentable. The opinion was authored by Judge Taranto and the panel included Chief Judge Moore and Judge John H. Chun of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential decision reversing a district court’s finding that an error in Canatex Completion Solutions, Inc.’s patent claims rendered the claims indefinite. Canatex’s U.S. Patent No. 10,794,122, titled “Releasable Connection for a Downhole Tool String,” contains a phrase that reads “the connection profile of the second part,” which appears in all the independent claims, and should have read “the connection profile of the first part,” according to Canatex. The error also appears in the Abstract and twice in the written description.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires issued a Director Review decision on Monday, which he designated as precedential, vacating a decision granting institution of an inter partes review (IPR) because the Board erred in accepting the petitioner’s inconsistent claim constructions without explanation. In Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc., the PTAB instituted the IPR on September 15, 2025, and Director Review was initiated sua sponte in order to address the claim construction issues.

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential ruling in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. affirming most of a non-infringement ruling entered by the District of Delaware over accused transcatheter heart valve products with balloon-expandable frames. Addressing challenges to the district court’s claim construction raised by Aortic, the Federal Circuit determined that the patentee acted as its own lexicographer for the claim term “outer frame” through consistent interchangeable uses of that term made in connection with specific embodiments disclosed in the specification.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday affirmed a district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement  in NG LLC v. CreatedHair Designs, LLC, which centers on the proper construction of a key claim term and the application of prosecution history estoppel. U.S. Patent No. 10,945,477 and U.S. Patent No. 10,881,159 are owned by NG and concern a wig grip apparatus comprising a mesh element. Claim 1 specifies that “‘the mesh element includes a forward periphery’ and ‘the wig grip apparatus terminates at the forward periphery.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday issued a precedential ruling in Magema Technology LLC v. Phillips 66, reversing the district court’s denial of a new trial and remanding . The CAFC agreed with the district court’s finding that defendants Phillips 66, Phillips 66 Co., and WRB Refining LP’s noninfringement theory was “improper and prejudicial,” but disagreed that it was harmless error. The decision was authored by Chief District Judge Renée Marie Bumb of the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation, with Chief Judge Moore and Circuit Judge Stoll on the panel.

On Friday, August 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a ruling in HC Robotics v. International Trade Commission affirming agency determinations that HC Robotics’ material delivery solution infringed upon robotics delivery patent claims owned by OPEX Corporation. In so ruling, the Federal Circuit dismissed HC Robotics’ argument that the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) erred in construing several claim terms from patents asserted by OPEX in the Section 337 infringement proceeding.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Qiagen Sciences, LLC reversing the District of Delaware’s denial of Qiagen’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of non-infringement. The Federal Circuit found that the jury’s infringement verdict rested upon insufficient evidence, faulting the district court for improperly turning a claim construction matter over to the jury and for conducting an erroneous infringement analysis under the doctrine of equivalents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday vacated a district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement for Apple, holding that the district court abused its discretion in striking an expert infringement opinion. The CAFC opinion was authored by Chief Judge Moore. The underlying lawsuit was brought by Taction Technology, Inc. against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging certain Apple products that use haptics technology infringed claims 1–20 of its U.S. Patent No. 10,659,885 and claims 1–17 of its U.S. Patent No. 10,820,117. Apple moved for summary judgment of noninfringement and the district court granted the motion because it said Taction’s expert opinion “contained a new theory in violation of local patent rules and improperly argued claim construction.”

On Friday, August 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential ruling in FMC Corp. v. Sharda USA, LLC vacating the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s preliminary injunction order preventing Sharda from importing, selling or distributing its “WINNER” insecticide. The Federal Circuit found that the district court’s grant of injunctive relief rested on an erroneous claim construction for “composition” that failed to take into account the removal of references to stable compositions from the specification of the asserted patents.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a split ruling in Acufloor, LLC v. EvenTile, Inc. vacating a stipulated judgment of non-infringement by the Middle District of Florida following claim construction in infringement litigation between rivals in the ceramic tile installation industry. Although Judge Leonard Stark concurred with the panel’s vacatur, he dissented from the majority’s narrow construction of the claim term “edge,” arguing that the proper course of action for the appellate court was to remand to the district court under Acufloor’s proposed broader construction, which creates enablement issues that the district court should address in the first instance.