WASHINGTON, D.C. — A patent should not be construed to encompass all disclosed embodiments when doing so would contradict the claim language, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held June 18 (TIP Systems, LLC, et al. v. Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, Inc., et al., Nos. 2007-1241, -1279, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 12757).
A panel affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which granted summary judgment that two TIP Systems LLC patents to be not infringed by Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin Inc. and other parties. The two patents, Nos. 6,009,169 and 6,512,828, relate to cord-free telephones for use in correctional facilities; the accused devices are known as the CFSS and SPSS model phones.
Related Resources
Practice Area Research Materials
Access Case law, Codes, Shepard's® Citations, Secondary Sources and more, for 27 practice areas, for one day, one week or one or more months.
Practice Areas > Intellectual Property Law
Practice resources, codes and statutes, legal subject outlines and more from the Legal Web Site Directory.
Patent Law Center
One of the dynamic, practice-specific communities featuring tailored multimedia content, the latest news and easy-access to the LexisNexis products and resources you need.
| |
At issue on appeal were the District Court’s claim construction of several limitations, including the claimed “handset” in the ‘169 patent, which the court construed to require the presence of a handle; TIP contended that the term had been redefined in the context of the invention to not require the presence of a handle.
However, the Federal Circuit held that TIP’s proffered construction would conflate the term handset with construction of a phrase reciting a means for mounting the handset, which refers to a different structure than the handset itself. The specification repeatedly refers to a handle, and the patent depicts only phones with a handle, the court said, adding that the District Court did not err in not considering extrinsic evidence as to the accepted industry meaning of the term handset because the intrinsic evidence outweighed the extrinsic evidence.
The Federal Circuit also affirmed the lower court’s construction of another limitation as requiring that the earpiece and mouthpiece project from the front wall of the unit, saying that though the ‘828 patent discloses an embodiment with no such projection, to construe the term to encompass that embodiment “would contradict the language of the claims.”
Copyright 2008, LexisNexis, Division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
