attachment 372
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
1/25
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
THE USE OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCEFOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Did PhillipsRemove Extrinsic Evidencefrom the Analysis?
Bruce C. Haas
New York, NY
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
2/25
2
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Use of Extrinsic Evidence Before Phillips
Dictionaries
Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa per Azioni, 158 F.3d. 1243,1251 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Rexnord Corp v. Laitram Corp., 274F.3d 1336, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
Expert EvidencePitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298
(Fed. Cir. 1998)
Treatises and Textbooks
Glaxo Wellcome Inc. v. Andrx Pharms., Inc., 344 F.3d 1226,
1229 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
Inventor Testimony
Kolmes v. World Elastic Corp., 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 9407, 11(Fed. Cir. May 6, 1998)
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
3/25
3
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Intrinsic Evidence
Claim language
Specification
File history
Phillipshas made it clear that claim terms should beconstrued based upon intrinsic evidence whenever possible.
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
4/25
4
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
To properly construe a claim term, a Court must first look to thetext of the patent claim:
It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a
patent define the invention . . . Phillips v. AWH Corporation,
415 F.3d. 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). A court must look to the words of the claims themselves . . .
to define the scope of a patented invention. Markman v.Westview Instruments, Inc. 52 F.3d 967, 979-81 (Fed. Cir1995) (en banc).
When the meaning of a disputed term is clear from the text ofthe claim, that meaning should control absent a clear andunambiguous disclaimer. See Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst MarionRoussel, Inc., 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 19799 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3,2006).
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
5/25
5
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Claim construction must begin with the words of the claim
themselves. Id. Therefore, a court must look at theordinary meaning of the words in the context of the writtendescription and the prosecution history. Phillipsat 1312
(citing Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313,1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the
meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinaryskill in the art in question at the time of the invention
(effective filing date). Phillipsat 1313 (citing Innova/PureWater, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration System, Inc., 381 F.3d.1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
6/25
6
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
How does the court determine a particular terms meaning to a
person of ordinary skill?
Learned Treatises
Technical Dictionaries
Expert Testimony
Often the meaning of claim term is clear to a lay judgeif so,that meaning should be used. See Phillipsat 1314.
If the meaning is not quite so clearwhat does a court look to?
The Specification The File Wrapper
Dictionaries
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
7/25
7
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
The patent specification is the next best source after the claimitself:
1) Specification may define the term.
2) Specification may provide examples.3) Specification may reveal prior art.
4) The Background of the Invention may provide helpfulinformation.
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
8/25
8
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
The file wrapper is less reliable than the claim language andthe specification:
1) The file wrapper may define the term.
2) The file wrapper may reveal a disclaimer.3) The file wrapper may reveal how the examiner or
inventor understood the term.
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
9/25
9
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Phillipsemphasized the importance of intrinsic evidence, but alsoauthorized district courts to rely on extrinsic evidence. Extrinsicevidence is, however, less significant than the intrinsic record.Phillipsat 1317.
The Federal Circuit still views extrinsic evidence as being lessreliable than the patent, and its prosecution history, in determininghow to construe claim terms. Phillipsat 1317 (citing C.R. Bard, Inc.v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
Undue reliance on extrinsic evidence poses the risk that it will be
used to change the meaning of claims in derogation of theindisputable public records and undermine the public noticefunction of patents.
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
10/25
10
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
A clear and unambiguous disclaimer during patent prosecutionshould control.
Such a disclaimer provides direction to the court inconstruing claim terms, as the term should not be defined
inconsistently with the disclaimer. Disclaimer case law:
The prosecution history (or file wrapper) limits the
interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretationthat may have been disclaimed or disavowed during
prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance. Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448,
452, (Fed. Cir. 1985)
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
11/25
11
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Representations made during prosecution must beunambiguous and contain clear disavowals.
See Aquatex Industries Inc. v. Techniche Solutions, 419F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
[C]laim terms take on their ordinary and accustomedmeanings unless the patentee demonstrated an intent todeviate from the ordinary and accustomed meaning . . . byredefining the term or by characterizing the invention in theintrinsic record using words or expressions of manifestexclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal ofclaim scope.
Teleflex Inc. v. Fisoca North America Corp., 299 F.3d1313, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
12/25
12
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since PhillipsThatRely on Extrinsic Evidence
Dictionaries
The Federal Circuit in the en banc Phillipsdecision statesthat in some circumstances, general purpose dictionaries
may still be helpful. Cases decided after Phillipswhere dictionaries were considered
in construing claim terms:
Paymaster Techs., Inc. v. United States, 2006 U.S. App.LEXIS 11325, 14-15 (Fed. Cir. May 4, 2006) (Determining
that a dictionary definition strengthens [the] distinctionbetween to and through, the Court upheld the Trial Courts
construction.)
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
13/25
13
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since PhillipsThatRely on Extrinsic Evidencecontd
Dictionariescontd
Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 442 F.3d1322, 13-15 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (The appellate court disagreed
with the trial courts definition of gap derived from Webster's IINew Riverside University Dictionary. Yet the appellate courtrelied on a dictionary definition of annular formulated in Int'lRectifier Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 361 F.3d 1363, 1372-73 (Fed.Cir. 2004), which cited Webster's Third New International
Dictionary 88 (1966).)
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
14/25
14
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since PhillipsThatRely on Extrinsic Evidencecontd
Dictionariescontd
Terlep v. Brinkmann Corp., 418 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir.2005) (Concluding that the district court correctly defined theterm clear, the court used a dictionary definition of "clear" as
"giving free passage to light or to the sight: easily seen through:not cloudy, turbid, or opaque," to confirm what was in the writtendescription and prosecution history.)
Old Town Canoe Co. v. Confluence Holdings Corp., 448 F.3d1309, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (The court determined that the useof a dictionary definition by the district court to define coalesce
and complete was not improper.)
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
15/25
15
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since PhillipsThatRely on Extrinsic Evidencecontd
Dictionariescontd
Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem Corp., 441 F.3d 991 (Fed. Cir.2006) (Because dictionaries, and especially technical
dictionaries, endeavor to collect the accepted meanings ofterms used in various fields of science and technology, thoseresources have been recognized as among the many toolsthat can assist the court in determining the meaning ofparticular terminology to that of skill in the art of the
invention.)
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
16/25
16
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since PhillipsThatRely on Extrinsic Evidencecontd
Learned Treatises/Textbooks
The Federal Circuit in the en banc Phillipsdecision states that acourt can look to those sources available to the public that show
what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed
claim language to mean.
Cases decided after Phillipswhere learned treatises/textbooks wereconsidered in construing claim terms:
Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharms.USA, Inc., 429 F.3d 1364, 1374-75
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (The court agreed with the district courtsdetermination that one of skill in the art would understandsaccharides to encompass more than sugars, and would include
polysaccharides. Extrinsic evidence in the form of technical
dictionaries, treatises, and expert testimony were used to supportthis conclusion drawn from the '450 patent.)
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
17/25
17
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since PhillipsThatRely on Extrinsic Evidencecontd
Learned Treatises/Textbookscontd
AquaTex Indus. v. Techniche Solutions, 419 F.3d 1374, 1381-82(Fed. Cir. 2005) (Consistent interpretations in the industry
publications confirm one of ordinary skill in the textilemanufacturing industry would understand that commercial fiberfill
batting material is made of synthetic or polyester fibers.)
Nystrom v. Trex Co., 424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Indiscerning the meaning of claim terms, resort to dictionaries and
treatises also may be helpful.)
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
18/25
18
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since PhillipsThatRely on Extrinsic Evidencecontd
Expert Testimony
The Federal Circuit in the en banc Phillipsdecision states thatexpert testimony can still be useful to a court interpreting
patent claims for a variety of purposes including: Understanding how the invention works
Establishing how a particular term has a specific meaningin the pertinent technical field
In contrast, Phillipswarns that expert testimony that is clearly
at odds with the claim construction mandated by the claimsthemselves should be discounted.
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
19/25
19
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since PhillipsThatRely on Extrinsic Evidencecontd
Expert Testimonycontd
Also, expert testimony is usually generated at the time of and forthe purpose of litigation, and thus can suffer from bias that is
not present in intrinsic evidence. Phillipsat 1318.
Cases decided after Phillipswhere expert testimony was consideredin construing claim terms:
Conoco, Inc. v. Energy and Envtl. Intl, LC, 2006 U.S. App.LEXIS 21036 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 17, 2006) (The court consideredexpert testimony in concluding that the ordinary meaning of"stable nonagglomerating suspension," defined by the districtcourt as not agglomerating at the time that the [substance] is
introduced into the pipeline, was not in error.)
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
20/25
20
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since PhillipsThatRely on Extrinsic Evidencecontd
Expert Testimonycontd
Serio U.S. Indus v. Plastic Recovery Techs. Corp., 2006 U.S.App. LEXIS 20474 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2006) (Since it was
weighed against intrinsic evidence, the district court correctlyused expert testimony to provide background on the technologyat issue, to explain how an invention works, to ensure that thecourt's understanding of the technical aspects of the patent isconsistent with that of a person of skill in the art, or to establishthat a particular term in the patent or the prior art has a particularmeaning in the pertinent field. Citing Phillips, at 1318.)
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
21/25
21
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since PhillipsThatRely on Extrinsic Evidencecontd
Expert Testimonycontd
Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1375(Fed. Cir. 2006) (Expert testimony confirmed, that the relayingstep is not limited to pneumatically operated valves. As a
result, the district court's interpretation of the relaying step wasconsidered unduly narrow.)
Global Maintech Corp. v. I/O Concepts, Inc., 2006 U.S. App.LEXIS 11017, 11-12 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2006) (Fed Cir found the
district court made no error in supporting its claim construction
with expert testimony, which expressly defined a heterogenous
computer system as one that simultaneously controls multiple
computers that use different operating systems.)
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
22/25
22
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since PhillipsThatRely on Extrinsic Evidencecontd
Expert Testimonycontd
Snypro II Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. T-Mobile USA Inc., 450 F.3d
1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (This court has recognized that extrinsicevidence and expert testimony can help to educate the courtconcerning the invention and the knowledge of persons of skill inthe field of the invention.)
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
23/25
23
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since PhillipsThatRely on Extrinsic Evidencecontd
Inventor Testimony
The Federal Court in the en banc Phillipsdecision states thatinventor testimony can still be useful to a court interpreting
patent claims. Warner-Lambert Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 418 F.3d
1326, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (Evaluating the district courtsuse of inventor testimony, the appellate court found there wasno error in concluding that the Warner-Lambert inventors
were concerned only with carbonate ions, had no intention ofclaiming bicarbonates, and consequently had no intent todeceive the PTO in not disclosing Vasotec[R].)
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
24/25
24
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Practical Approaches
1) Claim term meaning must be consistent with scope ofinvention.
2) Ordinary and customary meaning usually prevails.
3) Experts can help explain how a person of ordinary skill
understands a disputed term.4) Dictionaries can help a court understand how a person of
ordinary skill understands a disputed term.
5) Textbooks, treatises and technical dictionaries can help a courtunderstand how a person of ordinary skill understands a
disputed term.6) Inventor testimony can help explain how a person of ordinary
skill understands a disputed term.
-
8/3/2019 Attachment 372
25/25
25
Has Phillipsclarified how courts should construe claims?
Is extrinsic evidence still useful in construing disputedterms?