In Northrup Grumman Corp. v. Intel Corp., 325 F.2d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2003), the Federal Circuit rejected the district court findings and defendant’s argument that Northrup was\u00a0 relying upon mere boiler plate that “the present invention may be made to conform to any one of a variety of data transfer algorithms.”\u00a0 However the Federal Circuit did not express any opinion about boilerplate generally, but did find that the patent does not rest upon a mere “boilerplate” suggestion of broad application. It goes on to provide substantive, albeit general, support for that declared intention.<\/p>\n Everyone seems to have a different take on disclaimers from simple matter-of-fact statements, to expositions on claim construction philosophy:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n \n \u00a0U.S. Patent No.\u00a08,047,178.<\/p>\n The bottom line is that patent application boiler plate doesn’t seem to cause any harm, and occasionally, it has been helpful.\u00a0 Better, of course, would be the\u00a0oxymoronic “custom boilerplate” where\u00a0stock broadening statements are\u00a0tailored to the current disclosure.\u00a0Therefore, there is good reason to include well-thought-out “boilerplate” in an application, although\u00a0it\u00a0is no substitute for a well-crafted specification.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Stock language for advertisements\u00a0and syndicated columns were cast or stamped in more durable materials such as steel for distribution and local printing.\u00a0 Apparently from their resemblance to the steel plates used in the construction of boilers, the plates, and eventually … Continue reading ![\"boilerplate\"](\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/05\/boilerplate.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n