{"id":668,"date":"2016-04-01T10:46:31","date_gmt":"2016-04-01T14:46:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=668"},"modified":"2016-04-02T11:30:44","modified_gmt":"2016-04-02T15:30:44","slug":"preference-for-giving-each-claim-term-effect-does-not-overcome-meaning-apparent-from-the-specification","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=668","title":{"rendered":"Preference for Giving Each Claim Term Effect Does Not Overcome Meaning Apparent from the Specification"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Simpleair, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB,<\/em> [2015-1251] (April 1, 2016), the Federal Circuit \u00a0vacated the jury verdict of infringement, and remanded with instructions to enter judgment of non-infringement. \u00a0At issue was the meaning of “data channel” in\u00a0U.S. Patent No.\u00a07,035,914 directed to a system and method for transmission of data.<\/p>\n

Critical to infringement is whether a data channel was on line or off line. \u00a0Google presented some compelling simple diagrams showing the meaning on-line and offline, while Simpleair maintained that the district court correctly found that a channel simply meant a path for viewing a category of information, rather than the entire connection. The Federal Circuit found the district court’s construction was “incorrect”.<\/p>\n

\"Google\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit noted that while\u00a0\u201cinterpretations that render some portion of the
\nclaim language superfluous are disfavored . . . [t]he preference for giving meaning to all terms,\u00a0however, is not an inflexible rule that supersedes all other\u00a0principles of claim construction.” \u00a0The Federal Circuit reiterated that that claims must always be read
\nin light of the specification, and in\u00a0addition must be given meaning consistent\u00a0with how they would have been understood at the time of\u00a0invention by a person having ordinary skill in the art.<\/p>\n

Looking to the specification, the Federal Circuit found a PHOSITA at the time of invention\u00a0would understand that a key aspect of the invention\u00a0is the ability of a remote device to receive\u00a0notifications even when it is not connected to the Internet\u00a0by traditional means. \u00a0The Federal Circuit further noted that the invention contemplates two distinct paths, which was consistent with Google’s interpretation, and contrary to the district court’s interpretation.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit also rejected the argument that data channel should be construed to mean data feed, pointing out that data channel was a term added by amendment and used no where else in the specification, while data feed is a term used in the specification and claims. \u00a0The Federal Circuit said the choice to use \u201cdata channel\u201d in claim 1\u00a0rather than \u201cdata feed,\u201d notwithstanding use of the latter\u00a0elsewhere in the patent, lends further support to the\u00a0conclusion that \u201cdata feed\u201d does not carry the same meaning\u00a0as \u201cdata channel.\u201d<\/p>\n

Under the correct construction, the Federal Circuit agreed that the claims could not be infringed, and vacated the judgment and remanded the case for entry of a judgment of non-infringement.<\/p>\n

Four canons of claim construction contributed to the construction in this case, including (1) every word in a claim should be given effect; (2)\u00a0claims must always be read\u00a0in light of the specification; (3) claims must be given meaning consistent with how they would have been understood at the time of invention by a person having ordinary skill in the art; and (4) different words in the claims should be given different meanings’ \u00a0Although giving effect to every word in a claim was downgraded to a “preference”<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Simpleair, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB, [2015-1251] (April 1, 2016), the Federal Circuit \u00a0vacated the jury verdict of infringement, and remanded with instructions to enter judgment of non-infringement. \u00a0At issue was the meaning of “data channel” in\u00a0U.S. … 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-668","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\/668","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=668"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/668\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":670,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/668\/revisions\/670"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=668"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=668"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=668"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}