{"id":1182,"date":"2016-08-30T12:00:10","date_gmt":"2016-08-30T16:00:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1182"},"modified":"2016-09-03T20:59:21","modified_gmt":"2016-09-04T00:59:21","slug":"claim-narrowed-by-specification-is-saved-from-indefiniteness-but-too-narrow-to-be-infringed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1182","title":{"rendered":"Claim Narrowed by Specification is Saved from Indefiniteness but too Narrow to be Infringed"},"content":{"rendered":"

In\u00a0Liberty Ammunition, Inc., v. U.S.<\/em>, [2015-5057, 2015-5061] (August 30, 2016), the Federal Circuit reversed the Court of Claims decision that\u00a0that ammunition rounds used by the\u00a0United States Army embody the claims of Liberty Ammunition,\u00a0Inc.\u2019s U.S. Patent No. 7,748,325 without authorization,\u00a0violating 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1498.<\/p>\n

At issue was the construction of the term “reduced area of contact” in a claim for an improved bullet. \u00a0The Federal Circuit said there\u00a0are no clues within the claim itself as to what the area of\u00a0contact has been reduced from, but found that the specification saves the term from indefiniteness, explaining that the\u00a0projectile\u00a0has \u201ca reduced contact area as compared to conventional\u00a0projectiles. \u00a0This raised the question, “what constitutes a conventional\u00a0projectile?” \u00a0The Federal Circuit again found the answer in the specification: the\u00a0M855 round, the only conventional projectile\u00a0mentioned in the specification. \u00a0The Federal Circuit allowed that contact area was dependent on size, so the\u00a0Federal Circuit broadened the\u00a0corresponding caliber NATO standard-issue round as of\u00a0October 21, 2005.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit criticized the Court of Claims’ construction, which\u00a0did not tie the reduced area to the NATO rounds. \u00a0The Federal Circuit further observed that\u00a0would not be definite had\u00a0the trial court\u2019s construction been correct because there\u00a0would not be a sufficient objective boundary around the\u00a0term of degree \u201creduced area of contact.\u201d \u00a0The Federal Circuit said\u00a0a term of\u00a0degree fails to provide sufficient notice of its scope if it
\ndepends on the unpredictable vagaries of any one person\u2019s\u00a0opinion.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit also rejected the\u00a0Court of Claims’ construction of\u00a0\u201cintermediate opposite ends,\u201d which because it was lead by the term “including” the Court of Claims found could extend to the ends. \u00a0The Federal Circuit has many times warned against using terms such as \u201ccomprising,\u201d\u00a0or \u201cincluding,\u201d as \u201cweasel word[s] with which to
\nabrogate claim limitations.\u201d \u00a0The Federal Circuit noted that the\u00a0Court of Claims’ construction\u00a0goes against these\u00a0admonitions and significantly diminishes the \u201cintermediate opposite ends\u201d limitation, almost to the point of rendering\u00a0it a nullity.<\/p>\n

Because the accused Army rounds meet neither the\u00a0\u201cintermediate opposite ends\u201d limitation nor the \u201creduced\u00a0area of conduct\u201d limitation\u2014one of which appears in all
\nasserted claims\u2014we hold that the Government has not\u00a0violated Liberty\u2019s patent rights under \u00a7 1498.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In\u00a0Liberty Ammunition, Inc., v. U.S., [2015-5057, 2015-5061] (August 30, 2016), the Federal Circuit reversed the Court of Claims decision that\u00a0that ammunition rounds used by the\u00a0United States Army embody the claims of Liberty Ammunition,\u00a0Inc.\u2019s U.S. Patent No. 7,748,325 without authorization,\u00a0violating 28 … Continue reading →<\/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":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1182","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-claim-constructino"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1182","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=1182"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1182\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1183,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1182\/revisions\/1183"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1182"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1182"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1182"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}