claim construction Archives

claim construction

The meaning is plain as day: Just follow the grammar

by Tyler Jackson | Feb 26, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and vacated a decision by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, explaining that the Board failed to consider common textual modifier language when applying the plain meaning to a disputed claim term. Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, Case No. 24-1541 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2026) (Moore, C.J.; Dyk, Taranto, JJ.)

DivX sued Netflix for infringing its patent directed to systems and methods for streaming partly encrypted media content. The patent uses encryption/decryption, a Digital Rights Management (DRM) technique, to protect streams of media content from unauthorized access or copying. This technique requires that cryptographic information be relayed to the playback device for users to watch streamed media content. The patent explains that encrypting parts of streamed media decreases the resources needed for encryption/decryption and provides the playback device with information on the portions that are encrypted and “common” decryption information.

Netflix petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of all claims on the basis of obviousness. The Board rejected DivX’s proposed construction of limitation [l] of the representative claim: “locating encryption information that identifies encrypted portions of frames of video within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video.” DivX’s argued that the “encryption information” must be located “within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video.” The Board deemed DivX’s proposed claim construction as “too restrictive,” concluding that the claim suggested that the encryption information just needed to identify encrypted portions of frames that themselves were “within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video.”

In its final written decision, the Board agreed with Netflix that a person of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the asserted prior art but held that the artisan would not have reasonably expected success in combining the prior art and that therefore Netflix did not establish obviousness of the challenged claims.

The Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision on appeal and remanded the matter. On remand, the Board again concluded that Netflix did not demonstrate obviousness but this time accepted DivX’s originally proposed claim construction. Netflix appealed.

The Federal Circuit found the Board’s construction of limitation [l] was erroneous, agreeing with Netflix that limitation [l] was taught by the asserted prior art combination. Using the plain language doctrine, the Court found that limitation [l] was susceptible to two interpretations: “the modifier ‘within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video’ could modify either ‘encrypted portions of frames of video’ or ‘encryption information.’” Accordingly, the Court relied on the principle that where commas or other textual signals are not used, it is presumed that the modifier is tied to the nearest available semantically plausible modificand. The Court determined that only the “encrypted portions of frames of video” needed to be “within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video.” The Federal Circuit also determined that the context of the claim itself, the specification, and the prosecution history supported the construction that [...]

Continue Reading

Here’s an abstract idea: Patent eligibility depends on what is claimed, not unclaimed disclosure

by Hannah Hurley | Feb 19, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s rejection of Netflix’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 challenge, finding that claims directed to tailoring content specifications for wireless devices were patent ineligible. GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., Case Nos. 24-1669; -1744 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2026) (Prost, Clevenger, Taranto, JJ.)

GoTV sued Netflix for direct and induced infringement of three related patents directed to server-based tailoring of content for wireless devices. The district court dismissed the induced infringement claims and rejected Netflix’s § 101 challenge. A jury found infringement of one of the asserted patents and awarded $2.5 million in damages. Netflix appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s indefiniteness ruling as to a key term of the representative patents and adopted GoTV’s proposed construction of that claim term: “discrete low level rendering command.” Based on its construction, the Court concluded that the asserted claims were directed to an abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept under Alice. The Court concluded that the claims merely recited the abstract idea of using a generic template tailored to a user’s device constraints and relied on conventional computer and network functions without specifying a concrete technological improvement. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims failed both steps of the Alice framework and were invalid under § 101.

Although its § 101 holding resolved the case in Netflix’s favor, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment of no inducement and its denial of GoTV’s motion for a new trial on damages, explaining that GoTV had presented substantial arguments on those issues, before directing entry of final judgment for Netflix.

Practice note: The Federal Circuit noted that the ineligibility analysis depends on the claim language at issue, not whether there may be a patent eligible invention disclosed in the specification. Although the prosecution history may be intrinsic evidence for claim construction, recitation of the problems faced by the inventor and the inventive solution cannot be relied on to argue unclaimed details of the invention to render an abstract idea patent eligible.

Method steps must be done in order where there is logical dependency

by Art Dykhuis | Feb 12, 2026 | Patents

In a second appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s summary judgment of noninfringement based on an implicit ordering of steps in a method claim after disagreeing with the lower court on another basis for noninfringement. Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, Case No. 24-1092 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2026) (Chen, Prost, Wallach, JJ.)

At the district court, Sound View asserted an expired patent against Hulu’s use of a central content server connected to end users through intermediate edge servers. The asserted claim recites downloading streaming content from a buffer in a helper server to an end user while concurrently retrieving more streaming content from a content server.

The district court issued a decision in favor of Hulu, which Sound View appealed. In that first appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s ruling, based on the district court’s negative claim construction.

On remand, the district court determined Hulu did not infringe, finding that the claimed method requires the steps of “receiving a request” and “allocating a buffer” to be performed in sequence. Since Hulu did not perform these claimed steps in order, the district court found there was no infringement. Sound View appealed.

The claim-at-issue recites:

Source: Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, Case No. 24-1092 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2026), Slip Op. at 4.

The Federal Circuit reasoned that the phrase “requested SM object” in the buffer-allocation step grammatically and logically depended on the prior step of “receiving a request,” because an object cannot be “requested” until a request has occurred. The Court explained that “‘requested’ is not only a grammatical descriptor, but also is a status indicator reflecting a completed action – the receiving of a request.”

The Federal Circuit applied precedent on implicit ordering of method steps and noted that “[o]ur caselaw on implicit ordering does not help Sound View, as it does not require a finding that the performance of the claimed steps would be inoperable if the steps are not followed in the order they appear in the claim” (emphasis added). The Court explained that the “logical” dependency between the method steps mandates that the request-receiving step precede buffer allocation. Because there was no dispute that the accused systems performed these steps in a different order, the Court affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement.

Equivalents still requires all elements be met, injunctive relief still governed by eBay factors

by Jake B. Vallen | Jan 8, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a mixed ruling in a dispute over patents covering child car seat technology, explaining that infringement under the doctrine of equivalents requires an equivalent for each and every claim element, and that a grant of injunctive relief requires proof of all eBay factors. On the issue of willfulness, the panel majority held that the exclusion of exculpatory evidence was a reversable error. Wonderland Switzerland AG v. Evenflo Co., Inc., Case Nos. 23-2043; -2233; -2326 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2025) (Moore, Prost, JJ.) (Reyna, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

Wonderland owns two patents directed to convertible child car seats. Wonderland alleged that Evenflo’s four-in-one convertible seat models infringed its patents. A jury found infringement of one patent under the doctrine of equivalents and infringement of the other patent both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents. The district court entered judgment and permanently enjoined Evenflo from activities related to both patents. Evenflo appealed.

Evenflo challenged the finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents for the first patent, arguing that its accused seats lacked the claimed “locking mechanism for selectively detachably connecting” the seat back to the seat assembly. The Federal Circuit agreed, finding that no reasonable jury could find equivalence because the claim “plainly requires the seat back to include the components for selective detachability,” whereas Evenflo’s seats “simply include a stationary metal bar” and all locking components reside on the seat assembly. As a result, the Court concluded “there c[ould] be no equivalence as a matter of law.”

Evenflo also argued that the district court abused its discretion in permanently enjoining activities relating to both patents. Regarding the first patent, the Federal Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion in granting a permanent injunction because Wonderland expressly declined to request such relief. Wonderland argued the grant of a permanent injunction as to the first patent was harmless error because it had the same “practical effects” as the injunction for the second patent. The Court disagreed, explaining that the injunction could affect Evenflo’s release of other products, which may not necessarily infringe the second patent.

Regarding the second patent, the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion in granting a permanent injunction because it relied solely on speculative and conclusory evidence that Wonderland suffered, and would continue to suffer, irreparable harm or injury that could not be compensated with monetary damages. The Court explained that the district court failed to identify evidence that Wonderland’s partner lost sales or market share to Evenflo rather than other competitors, or that the partner’s reputation or product distinctiveness was harmed. The Court also noted that testimony that a lost car seat sale “naturally leads” to loss of other product sales was based on conjecture without supporting data. Finally, the Court found that statements that consumers “might think” technology problems existed if Evenflo’s product failed were deemed speculative and insufficient to establish irreparable harm.

Wonderland cross-appealed, asserting [...]

Continue Reading

From ‘best’ to bust: Multiple methods to determine “optimal/best” render claims indefinite

by Lauren Hong | Dec 4, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s judgment of invalidity and grant of summary judgment of noninfringement, concluding that even if excluded portions of expert testimony were considered, the judgments would remain proper. Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. MediaPointe, Inc., AMHC, Inc., Case No. 24-1571 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 25, 2025) (Taranto, Stoll, Cunningham, JJ.)

AMHC owns two patents that address systems and methods for efficiently routing streamed media content over the internet using an “intelligent distribution network” that centrally manages requests for streamed media from geographically dispersed users to mitigate bandwidth problems inherent in transmitting large volumes of data. Akamai sued AMHC and its subsidiary MediaPointe (collectively, MediaPointe) seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement for both patents. MediaPointe counterclaimed for infringement of both patents, after which Akamai counterclaimed for declaratory judgment of invalidity of all claims of both patents.

At the claim construction stage, the district court determined that claim limitations using “optimal/best” language were invalid for indefiniteness because the specification failed to provide a procedure or boundaries to determine what is “optimal/best.” For the remaining asserted claims, the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement. In doing so, the district court:

Excluded as untimely presented key portions of MediaPointe’s technical expert’s testimony, without which MediaPointe could not reasonably establish infringement
Ruled that even if the testimony was considered, the record entitled Akamai to summary judgment of noninfringement.

MediaPointe appealed.

MediaPointe contended that the claims using “optimal/best” language were not indefinite, arguing that the requirement to use measurable performance data (specifically “trace-route results”) provided an objective standard. The Federal Circuit disagreed, finding that this requirement did not supply a reasonably clear and exclusive definition of “optimal/best.” The Court explained that the “trace-route results” requirement was not sufficiently clear because multiple methods could be used to determine compliance, and the patent offered no guidance on which measures to apply.

MediaPointe also challenged the summary judgment of noninfringement for the remaining claims, arguing that the district court applied an improperly narrow construction instead of the ordinary meaning of the disputed limitation. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, finding that a skilled artisan would not have reasonably understood the claim language more broadly and that the district court’s construction was correct in light of the patent’s context. The Court concluded that because there was no evidence that Akamai’s system met this narrower limitation, even considering the excluded expert testimony, there was no triable issue of fact and no reasonable jury could find infringement.

The Federal Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s judgment.

Well, well, well: Indefinite claims turn out to be a typo

by Dexter Hamilton | Nov 20, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court ruling that invalidated patent claims for indefiniteness, finding that the disputed language was a minor clerical error. Canatex Completion Solutions, Inc. v. Wellmatics, LLC, et al., Case No. 24-1466 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 2025) (Moore, Prost, Taranto, JJ.)

Canatex sued Wellmatics and several GR Energy entities for infringing its patent directed to a releasable connection for a downhole tool string. The patent covers a two-part device used in oil and gas wells that allows operators to disconnect and retrieve the upper part of the tool string while leaving the lower part in the well if it becomes stuck.

The patent’s claims, abstract, and specification include the phrase “the connection profile of the second part.” During claim construction, the defendants argued that the phrase lacked an antecedent basis, rendering the claims indefinite. Canatex responded that the phrase should have read “the connection profile of the first part” and that a skilled artisan would immediately recognize the error. Canatex asked the district court to construe the phrase accordingly.

The district court disagreed, finding that the “pervasiveness of the error” in both the claims and the specification suggested that the error “was an intentional drafting choice and not an error at all.” The district court added that Canatex’s failure to seek correction from the United States Patent and Trademark Office suggested that the error was neither minor nor evident on the face of the patent. The district court found all asserted claims invalid for indefiniteness. Canatex appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed. The Court found the error obvious and determined that a skilled artisan would recognize only one reasonable correction, which was changing “second” to “first.” The Court characterized the mistake as a minor clerical or typographical error and rejected arguments that alternative interpretations were plausible. The Court emphasized that its conclusion was consistent with the intrinsic evidence.

Pick a lane: USPTO Director nixes IPR for inconsistent claim construction positions

by Lauren Hong | Nov 20, 2025 | Patents

The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) vacated a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision instituting an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding after finding that the petitioner advanced inconsistent claim construction positions before the Board and in parallel district court litigation without adequate justification. Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2025-00340 (PTAB Nov. 5, 2025) (Stewart, USPTO Dir.)

Intellectual Ventures II LLC (IV), the patent owner, requested director review of the Board’s decision granting institution, arguing that the decision should be reversed because Tesla, Inc., the petitioner, failed to adequately explain why it advanced inconsistent claim construction positions before the district court and the Board.

In the district court, Tesla opposed IV’s plain and ordinary meaning construction of the claim limitation “generating said target feature information from said data statistics” in independent claim 1. Tesla argued that the limitation was indefinite because a person of ordinary skill in the art could not determine its meaning and scope with reasonable certainty. In contrast, before the Board, Tesla asserted that “no claim term requires express construction” and that the challenged claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning.

IV contended that Tesla’s justification (that it was statutorily prohibited from raising indefiniteness challenges in an IPR) was insufficient to explain the divergent positions. While the Board’s rules do not categorically prohibit petitioners from taking inconsistent claim construction positions across forums, petitioners must explain why those differences are warranted.

The Director agreed with IV, finding Tesla’s rationale inadequate. The Director explained that simply asserting that indefiniteness cannot be raised in an IPR does not explain why a petitioner should be permitted to raise inconsistent invalidity challenges in two forums. In vacating the institution decision, the Director emphasized that permitting such inconsistencies without proper justification would undermine the USPTO’s goal of “providing greater predictability and certainty in the patent system.”

Reframing the claim: Plain and ordinary meaning falls to lexicography

by Lauren Hong | Nov 6, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s construction of a claim, finding that the plain and ordinary meaning of a disputed term was redefined by the patentee under principles of lexicography and use of intrinsic claim construction evidence. Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., et al., Case No. 24-1145 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 27, 2025) (Prost, Reyna, Chen, JJ.)

Aortic sued Edwards Lifesciences for infringing its patents directed toward a transcatheter valve with a frame component. During claim construction, the district court determined that Aortic had acted as its own lexicographer and redefined the term “outer frame” to be “a self-expanding frame,” based on the interchangeable use of the terms “outer frame,” “self-expanding frame,” and “self-expanding outer frame” when referring to the same structure in two embodiments. Based on this construction, the parties stipulated to noninfringement of the asserted patents since Edwards’ accused valve did not have a self-expanding frame. Aortic appealed the judgment of noninfringement, challenging the district court’s construction of the claim term “outer frame.” Aortic appealed.

Aortic contended that “outer frame” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning of “positioned outside” and argued that the specification did not support limiting “outer” to require “self-expanding.” The Federal Circuit disagreed, relying on both lexicographical and specification-based grounds for its construction.

In applying principles of lexicography, the Federal Circuit reasoned that if a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would understand that two claim terms were used consistently and interchangeably throughout a patent specification, those terms may be considered definitionally equivalent. Referring to several examples, the Court observed that Aortic used “outer frame,” “self-expanding frame,” and “self-expanding outer frame” interchangeably throughout the specification when describing the frame, and concluded that “outer frame” was properly construed to require “self-expanding.”

With regard to using the specification as intrinsic claim construction evidence, the Federal Circuit reasoned that the specification consistently described the “outer frame” as a “self-expanding frame” and did not restrict that feature to a particular embodiment. From this, the Court concluded that the absence of any express exception or explanation would lead a POSITA to understand that the valve’s construction required a self-expanding outer frame in all embodiments.

Aortic alternatively argued that Edwards should be judicially estopped from arguing for a construction of “outer frame” that departed from its plain and ordinary meaning. Aortic asserted that Edwards had previously argued before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board that “outer frame” should be defined using its plain and ordinary meaning, but later adopted a contrary position in front of the district court, contending that the term referred only to a “self-expanding frame.” The Federal Circuit disagreed and explained that Aortic failed to sufficiently develop its judicial estoppel argument before the district court. Absent any exceptional circumstances, the Court concluded that Aortic had forfeited the argument.

Finding Aortic’s arguments unpersuasive, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment of noninfringement as to the asserted patents, upholding the district court’s construction of the disputed claim [...]

Continue Reading

Boss move: Disclaimer that doesn’t work can still work as a disclaimer

by Joshua Revilla | Oct 30, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s judgment of noninfringement and no invalidity for indefiniteness, concluding that the court correctly construed the claims and properly determined that the patents’ specifications and prosecution histories would enable a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) to ascertain the scope of the claims with reasonable certainty. Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. v. Fortress Iron, LP, Fortress Fence Products LLC, Case Nos. 24-1231; -1359 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2025) (Moore, Linn, Cunningham, JJ.)

Barrette sued Fortress for infringing its patents directed to a fencing assembly featuring pivoting, sliding connectors that connect pickets to rails. During claim construction, the district court determined that the terms “boss,” “projection,” and “nub” should be given the same meaning and that these “boss” terms described fastener-less and integral structures, distinguishing them from prior art. The district court also held that the terms “sliding” and “causes” were not indefinite because a POSA would understand their scope.

Following the Markman hearing, Barrette stipulated that it could not prove infringement under the court’s construction of the “boss” terms because the accused products used non-integral fasteners. Fortress stipulated, under the same construction, that it could not establish invalidity for indefiniteness. Barrette appealed, and Fortress cross-appealed.

Barrette first argued that the district court erred in finding that the specification disclaimed bosses with fasteners by disparaging prior art assemblies that used them. According to Barrette, the specification did not criticize the use of fasteners but merely distinguished the prior art designs. Fortress, however, argued that the specification repeatedly criticized assemblies employing fasteners, describing prior art systems that used fasteners to join the rails as time consuming to install. In contrast, the patented invention attributes its quick installation advantage to the use of fastener-less, integral bosses.

The Federal Circuit agreed with Barrette that the specification did not clearly and unmistakably disclaim bosses that use fasteners. The Court explained that while a patent may describe multiple advantages over the prior art, not every embodiment must incorporate each of those advantages. Accordingly, claims should not be construed to require every advancement disclosed in the specification. The Court further rejected Fortress’ argument that the claimed “boss” must always achieve the benefit of quick installation. Although the asserted patents describe ease of installation as an advantage of using bosses, that benefit does not limit the term’s structural scope. A “boss,” the Court held, is not restricted to fastener-less configurations. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit determined that the district court erred in limiting the claims to fastener-less bosses.

Barrette next argued that the district court erred by concluding that the prosecution history disclaimed non-integral bosses. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument and agreed with the district court that Barrette had clearly disclaimed non-integral boss structures during prosecution. The Federal Circuit stated that Barrette clearly distinguished prior art from the “claimed integral boss” in prosecution and expressly clarified the scope of its claims.

Barrette argued that its subsequent communications with the patent office rendered any purported disclaimer [...]

Continue Reading

When patent law meets free speech: Anti-SLAPP appellate jurisdiction

by Jodi Benassi | Oct 30, 2025 | Trade Secrets

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that it had jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from a district court’s denial of a California anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion in a trade secret and inventorship case, finding such a denial was immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. On the merits, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s decision. IQE, plc v. Newport Fab, LLC, DBA Jazz Semiconductor, et al., Case No. 24-1124 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2025) (Hughes, Stark, Wang, JJ.)

IQE sued Jazz Semiconductor, Tower Semiconductor, and other entities and individuals (collectively, Tower) for violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256, and five claims arising under California state law, including trade secret misappropriation and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Tower moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and simultaneously filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the claims for misappropriation and intentional interference arising under state law. The district court denied Tower’s motion to strike. Tower appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit determined that under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a) the Federal Circuit would have had jurisdiction at the time the appeal was filed. The Ninth Circuit explained that the Federal Circuit had subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal because the complaint asserted a claim for correction of inventorship, a cause of action arising under federal patent law. The Ninth Circuit further concluded that the Federal Circuit had appellate jurisdiction under Ninth Circuit law since the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion is an immediately appealable order under the collateral order doctrine. The Ninth Circuit therefore transferred the appeal to the Federal Circuit.

The Federal Circuit noted that the appeal raised a jurisdictional question of first impression: whether the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction over an appeal from a district court’s denial of an anti-SLAPP motion before entry of final judgment. The Federal Circuit agreed with the Ninth Circuit that it has subject matter jurisdiction over claims created by federal patent law. The Federal Circuit noted that appellate jurisdiction typically is limited to a final decision by the district court, but the collateral order doctrine provides a narrow exception that allows an interlocutory appeal when a trial court’s order affects rights that will be irretrievably lost in the absence of an immediate appeal. The Court analyzed the three collateral order factors and determined that an anti-SLAPP motion to strike under California law fits squarely within the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule.

IQE argued that jurisdiction was improper for two reasons:

IQE filed an amended complaint after Tower’s appeal, suggesting the district court must revisit the motion.
Some circuits have held that state anti-SLAPP statutes conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Federal Circuit rejected both arguments, finding the amended complaint improper under Ninth Circuit precedent and deferring to the Ninth Circuit’s view that California’s anti-SLAPP law applies in federal court. [...]

Continue Reading

Older Posts »

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS