By Alissa Owen
Described by intellectual property legal experts as one of the most important cases of the decade, the Federal Circuit en banc in Phillips v. AWH Corp., revisited claim interpretation to provide clarity on how the Federal Circuit interprets claims.
As background, a patent application is submitted on behalf of an inventor-client to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In that patent application, there is a section known as the “claims” section. A patent’s claims determine the breadth of protection for an invention. Or, put another way, claims define exactly what the invention is. In fact, patent protection is only available for what is clearly and definitively described in the claims. As such, patent attorneys carry a great responsibility to ensure that claim language in their patent applications explicitly and exactly optimizes patent protection for their client’s invention.
Unfortunately, the Federal Circuit’s relatively high reversal rate in claim interpretation cases suggests ambiguity in how patents are interpreted, leaving patent attorneys unclear as to how courts effectively draft claims. Ironically, the Federal Circuit was created to provide uniformity to how disputed patent matters are adjudicated. The basis for creating the Federal Circuit was that such uniformity would result in greater certainty in how patent claims are interpreted, and greater certainty would result in less litigation and stronger patent protection. For businesses, stronger patent protection, less litigation, and less potential for litigation, is desirable.
In sum, patent attorneys and their business-clients look to the outcome of Phillips with interest as the Federal Circuit clarifies how courts should treat the claims section in patent applications, which in turn, should result in greater predictability in patent litigation and stronger patent protection for inventions.
For more information please contact Alissa Owen at AOwen@kmclaw.com.