In Phillips v. AWH, the US Federal Circuit clarifies the importance of defining a claim in the context of the entire patent rather than relying on outside sources.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Markman v. Westview Instruments Inc., 52 F.3d 967; 34 USPQ2d 1321 (1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370; 38 USPQ2d 1461 (1996).
Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576; 39 USPQ2d 1573 (1996).
The Johns Hopkins University v. Cellpro Inc., 47 USPQ2d 1705 (1998).
Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 381 F.3d 1111 (2004).
Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336; 60 USPQ2d 1851 (2001).
Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193; 64 USPQ2d 1812 (2002).
Inverness Medical Switzerland GmbH v. Warner Lambert Co., 309 F.3d 1373; 62 USPQ2d 1933 (2002).
Edward H. Phillips v. AWH Corp., Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corp., 415 F.3d 1303; 75 USPQ2d 1321 (decided July 12, 2005).
The two dissenters were concerned more with the determination in Markman that claim construction was a matter for the trial judge to establish, than with the position taken concerning the issues discussed in this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Auer, H. Determining the meaning of claim terms. Nat Biotechnol 24, 41–43 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0106-41
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0106-41
