{"id":233,"date":"2015-08-12T10:28:36","date_gmt":"2015-08-12T14:28:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=233"},"modified":"2015-08-18T10:55:45","modified_gmt":"2015-08-18T14:55:45","slug":"ptab-in-reexamination-should-have-at-least-acknowledged-prior-court-claim-construction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=233","title":{"rendered":"PTAB in Reexamination Should Have At Least Acknowledged Prior Court Claim Construction"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In <em>Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee,<\/em> [2014-1123], (August 12, 2015), the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB&#8217;s decision affirming the rejection of claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,876, in a reexamination proceeding.<\/p>\n<p>The Federal Circuit found that the\u00a0PTAB erred in failing\u00a0to consider the previous construction of the claims in\u00a0District Court litigation.\u00a0 While acknowledging that the\u00a0PTAB is generally not bound by a prior\u00a0judicial construction of a claim term, and that in reexaminations the PTAB\u00a0applies a different claim construction standard than applied by the district court, the Federal Circuit found that the PTAB still had an obligation to &#8220;acknowledge&#8221; the interpretation, and &#8220;assess&#8221; whether it is consistent with the broadest reasonable construction of the term.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit said that het PTAB\u00a0declined to address or even acknowledged the\u00a0district court&#8217;s prior determination, and because the patent owner&#8217;s construction was &#8220;tied&#8221; to the district courts&#8217; construction, the Federal Circuit thought that the\u00a0PTAB\u00a0had an obligation\u00a0to evaluate that construction and\u00a0determine whether it was consistent with the\u00a0broadest reasonable interpretation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In Power Integrations, Inc. v. Lee, [2014-1123], (August 12, 2015), the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB&#8217;s decision affirming the rejection of claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,249,876, in a reexamination proceeding. The Federal Circuit found that the\u00a0PTAB erred in failing\u00a0to &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=233\">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":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-233","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-claim-construction"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233","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=233"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":235,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233\/revisions\/235"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=233"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=233"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=233"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}