Determining the meaning of claim terms

Auer, Henry E
January 2006
Nature Biotechnology;Jan2006, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p41
Academic Journal
The article focuses on the meaning of the term claim in a patent. The author refers to several court cases regarding claim construction. It is reported that claim in a patent points out and distinctly claims an invention. It is reported that in the case, Markman v. Westview Instruments, the Court of Appeals ruled that the judge is empowered to provide the claim construction to be used subsequently in the trial.


Related Articles

  • Lemelson Foundation Dealt A Blow In Nevada Court. Andersen, Steven // Corporate Legal Times;Apr2004, Vol. 14 Issue 149, p22 

    Focuses on the ruling of the Nevada District Court for the intellectual property lawsuit filed by Symbol Technologies Inc. against the Lemelson Foundation. Overview of the practice of submarine patenting; Facts of the case; Contention of the court. INSET: Triple Whammy.

  • TRIZ Ä°LE PATENT KAPSAMINI AÅžMA TASARIMI. Kapucu, Sadettin // Engineer & the Machinery Magazine;aug2013, Issue 643, p54 

    Patents are an important source of knowledge based information for industrial research and product development due to its novelty and easy accessibility. It is much more important to know how to use this source of information for innovative designs. In this study, some tools of Inventive Problem...

  • Any evidence of plausibility admissible—but not enough. Smyth, Darren // Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice;Nov2013, Vol. 8 Issue 11, p808 

    The court, while upholding the decision of Mr Justice Arnold, clarifies that post-dated evidence is admissible in determining whether the alleged technical advance of a patent is plausible.

  • Thought policing. Johnson, Alan; Brown, David; Boon, James // Lawyer;1/8/2007, Vol. 21 Issue 1, p27 

    The article discusses the decisions of the British Court of Appeals in two cases that clarify matters relating to the patentability of methods of doing business and computer programs following a flurry of cases in the Patents Court. The details of "Aerotel Ltd. v. Telco Holdings Ltd. & Ors" and...

  • IS THE SUPREME COURT EXHAUSTED WITH PATENTS? Veravanich, Paul; Kappos, John // Orange County Business Journal;9/1/2008, Vol. 31 Issue 35, p35 

    The article reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has been reticent when it comes to patent law matters. The Supreme Court has ruled against the interests of patent holders in various cases. In this connection, a question has been raised on whether a patent holder may retain any of exclusive...

  • IP, IT AND TELECOMS: Material witless. Moshinsky, Ben; Simkin, Graham; Smith, Kevin // Lawyer;1/8/2007, Vol. 21 Issue 1, p26 

    The article reports on intellectual property, information technology and telecommunication issues disputed by lawyers in 2006. The Court of Appeal's discussion of software patents in the Macrossan and Aerotel cases was one of the big events of 2006. Copyright claims against websites YouTube and...

  • The Supreme Court of the United States.  // Congressional Digest;Dec26, Vol. 5 Issue 12, p353 

    Delves into the issue of whether or not the Trading with the Enemy Act empower the U.S. President to authorize and sell enemy patents without compensation. Title of the case; Decision upheld by the lower court; Opinion of the court as delivered by Justice Butler on October 11, 1926.

  • Trends and Volatilities in Heterogeneous Patent Quality in Taiwan. Wen-Cheng Lu; Jong-Rong Chen; I-Hsuan Tung // Journal of Technology Management & Innovation;2009, Vol. 4 Issue 2, p69 

    This study analyzes patent trends and volatilities for three heterogeneous quality patents in the Taiwan patent system from January 1973 to June 2006. The estimated models are symmetric GARCH (1,1) and asymmetric EGARCH (1,1), providing full sample, rolling sample, and out-of-sample evidence....

  • IN RE CURTIS.  // Berkeley Technology Law Journal;Annual Review 2005, Vol. 20 Issue 1, p177 

    The article informs that the U.S. Federal Circuit held that when the evidence indicates persons having ordinary skill in the relevant art cannot predict the operability in the invention of any species other than the one disclosed, a patentee will not be deemed to have invented species sufficient...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics