Opinion ID: 211651
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Interact's Alternative Arguments to Affirm the Judgment

Text: 46 Interact presents alternative arguments to affirm the district court's judgment. It argues that the V3 and V4 are monolithic controllers and not an accessory designed to aid a video game player. It also argues that a video game controller should be construed as a self-contained device intended to be used by itself for playing a video game without any additional accessory. 47 Neither of Interact's alternative arguments to support the judgment are persuasive. Both would require us to limit claim language to the specific embodiment disclosed in the written description. This would be improper. We do not import limitations into claims from examples or embodiments appearing only in a patent's written description, even when a specification describes very specific embodiments of the invention or even describes only a single embodiment, unless the specification makes clear that the patentee . . . intends for the claims and the embodiments in the specification to be strictly coextensive. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc). Here, after reviewing the specification, we conclude that the patentee did not intend for the claims and the embodiments disclosed in the specification to be coextensive.