{"id":132,"date":"2014-07-14T15:38:11","date_gmt":"2014-07-14T19:38:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=132"},"modified":"2014-07-19T16:10:08","modified_gmt":"2014-07-19T20:10:08","slug":"clear-and-unmistakeable-disavowal-found-in-an-ids","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=132","title":{"rendered":"Clear and Unmistakeable Disavowal Found in an IDS"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In <em>Golden Bridge Tech v. Apple,<\/em> [2013-1496] (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court\u2019s grant of summary judgment that Apple\u00a0does not infringe the asserted claims of U.S.Patent Nos. 6,574,267\u00a0and 7,359,427.<\/p>\n<p>The Federal Circuit concluded that the patent owners submissions during prosecution of its stipulated construction for the term preamble constituted a disclaimer. The Federal Circuit said that\u00a0while it\u00a0generally construes\u00a0terms according to their plain and ordinary meanings to one of ordinary skill in the art, it departs\u00a0from that meaning where there is disclaimer.\u00a0 As parts of an Information Disclosure Statement filed in a reexamination and in patent application, the patent owner submitted a stipulation from prior a litigation as to the\u00a0meaning of the claim term &#8220;preface.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The patent owner argued that the mere submission of an IDS did not work a disclaimer, by the Federal Circuit disagreed, noting that the patent owner submitted the information with a request that the PTO &#8220;expressly consider&#8221; it.<\/p>\n<p>TIPAn Information Disclosure Statement should perhaps include a statement that the submission of the information does not effect any express or implied disclaimer.\u00a0 It may also be a good practice of included a statement in all continuations and divisionals rescinding express or implied disclaimer made in any parent or related application.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In Golden Bridge Tech v. Apple, [2013-1496] (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court\u2019s grant of summary judgment that Apple\u00a0does not infringe the asserted claims of U.S.Patent Nos. 6,574,267\u00a0and 7,359,427. The Federal Circuit concluded that the patent &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=132\">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":[5,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-132","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-drafting-tips","category-patent-law"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132","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=132"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":133,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132\/revisions\/133"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=132"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=132"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=132"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}