{"id":103,"date":"2014-02-21T14:34:26","date_gmt":"2014-02-21T19:34:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=103"},"modified":"2014-02-21T14:34:26","modified_gmt":"2014-02-21T19:34:26","slug":"federal-circuit-we-were-right-the-first-time-claim-construction-is-reviewed-de-novo-on-appeal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=103","title":{"rendered":"Federal Circuit: We Were Right the First Time, Claim Construction is Reviewed De Novo on Appeal"},"content":{"rendered":"<p align=\"LEFT\">In <em>Lighting Ballast Control LLC, v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation<\/em>, [2012-1014] (February 21, 2014), the Federal Circuit en banc held that claim construction is a matter of law that is subject to de novo review on appeal, confirming the continued validity of its en banc decision in <em>Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc.<\/em>, 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998).<\/p>\n<p align=\"LEFT\">In an opinion\u00a0by Judge Newman, the Court relied upon principles of stare decisis, finding that\u00a0&#8220;[a]fter fifteen years of experience with <em>Cybor<\/em>, we conclude that the court should retain plenary review of claim construction, thereby providing national uniformity, consistency, and finality to the meaning and scope of patent claims.&#8221;\u00a0 The Court said that experience has confirmed that <em>Cybor<\/em> is an effective implementation of Markman II, and that the criteria for departure from <em>stare decisis<\/em> are not met.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In Lighting Ballast Control LLC, v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation, [2012-1014] (February 21, 2014), the Federal Circuit en banc held that claim construction is a matter of law that is subject to de novo review on appeal, confirming the &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=103\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-103","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-patent-law"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=103"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":105,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103\/revisions\/105"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=103"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=103"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=103"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}