Source: http://www.717madisonplace.com/?p=6886
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 05:22:41+00:00

Document:
The Hill-Rom v. Stryker case decided in June has not gotten a lot of coverage. There are some interesting portions of the opinion that will appeal to patent prosecutors.
Disavowal requires that “the specification [or prosecution history] make clear that the invention does not include a particular feature,” SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001), or is clearly limited to a particular form of the invention, Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[W]hen the preferred embodiment is described in the specification as the invention itself, the claims are not necessarily entitled to a scope broader than that embodiment.”) (quotation omitted). For example, we have held that disclaimer applies when the patentee makes statements such as “the present invention requires . . .” or “the present invention is . . .” or “all embodiments of the present invention are . . . .” See Regents of Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp., 717 F.3d 929, 936 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1316-19 (Fed. Cir. 2006); SciMed, 242 F.3d at 1343-44;Astrazeneca AB v. Hanmi USA, Inc., 554 F. App’x 912, 915 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (nonprecedential). We have also found disclaimer when the specification indicated that for “successful manufacture” a particular step was “require[d].” Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Those statements are not descriptions of particular embodiments, but are characterizations directed to the invention as a whole.”). We found disclaimer when the specification indicated that the invention operated by “pushing (as opposed to pulling) forces,” and then characterized the “pushing forces” as “an important feature of the present invention.”SafeTCare Mfg., Inc. v. Tele-Made, Inc., 497 F.3d 1262, 1269-70 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We found disclaimer when the patent repeatedly disparaged an embodiment as “antiquated,” having “inherent inadequacies,” and then detailed the “deficiencies [that] make it difficult” to use. Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC, 677 F.3d 1361, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he specification goes well beyond expressing the patentee’s preference . . . and its repeated derogatory statements about [a particular embodiment] reasonably may be viewed as a disavowal . . . .”). Likewise, we found disclaimer limiting a claim element to a feature of the preferred embodiment when the specification described that feature as a “very important feature . . . in an aspect of the present invention” and disparaged alternatives to that feature. Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. T-Mobile USA Inc., 450 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
There is no such disclaimer or lexicography here. There are no words of manifest exclusion or restriction. The patents-in-suit do not describe the invention as limited to a wired datalink. There is no disclosure that, for example, the present invention “is,” “includes,” or “refers to” a wired datalink and there is nothing expressing the advantages, importance, or essentiality of using a wired as opposed to wireless datalink. Nor is there language of limitation or restriction of the datalink. Nothing in the specification or prosecution history makes clear that the invention is limited to use of a cable as a datalink. Absent such language, we do not import limitations from the specification into the claims.
The fact that the specification indicates that in one embodiment, messages are sent to the wall interface unit “in accordance with the present invention,” does not mean that a wall interface unit must be present in all embodiments of the invention.
During oral argument, Judge Moore made the following comments about “embodiments of the present invention”: [Listen].
In fact, this specification states that the figures depicting the use of a wired datalink merely “illustrate embodiments of the invention.” `038 patent col. 4 ll. 59-65; see also id. col. 5 ll. 30-31 (“DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC EMBODIMENTS”); id.col. 22 ll. 20-31 (the “description of various embodiments” is not intended “to restrict or in any way limit the scope of the appended claims to such detail”).
I’ve reproduced these sections below.
What particularly caught my eye was the mention of the heading “Detailed Description of Specific Embodiments.” I think many prosecutors these days follow the philosophy of just using the heading “Detailed Description.” You can judge for yourself in view of this case whether the Federal Circuit has given a stamp of approval to “Detailed Description of Specific Embodiments” as being non-limiting.
The only distinction between claim 1 and claim 2 is the limitation that the “datalink” is a wired datalink. See also id.claims 10, 18. “[T]he presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation raises a presumption that the limitation in question is not found in the independent claim.” Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 910. This presumption is especially strong where the limitation in dispute is the only meaningful difference between an independent and dependent claim. Id. Of course, claim differentiation is not a hard and fast rule, and the presumption can be overcome by a contrary construction required by the specification or prosecution history. Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, nothing in this specification or prosecution history rebuts the presumption established by the doctrine of claim differentiation.
Hill-Rom v. Stryker, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Other claims of the patent in question, both asserted and unasserted, can also be valuable sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim term. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. Because claim terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims. See Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed.Cir.2001); CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Tura LP, 112 F.3d 1146, 1159 (Fed.Cir.1997). Differences among claims can also be a useful guide in understanding the meaning of particular claim terms. See Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d 1533, 1538 (Fed.Cir.1991). For example, 1315*1315 the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim. See Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed.Cir.2004).
Phillips v. AWH, 415 F.3d 1303, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
In contrast to Hill-Rom v. Stryker, a panel in a recent opinion made no reference to the DOCD presumption.
giro Co. of Am. v. United States, 384 F.2d 391, 404 (Ct. Cl.
Albecker v. Contour Products, Inc., 2014-1318 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2014).
record that the district court’s construction is correct.
You can read the Hill-Rom v. Stryker opinion [here].
You can listen to the Hill-Rom v. Stryker oral argument: [here].
For more on the Hill-Rom case, see Ryan Alley’s blog: [Link].
This entry was posted on Thursday, August 14th, 2014 at 6:33 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.	You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.