Just when the Federal Circuit starts showing signs of (once again) making sense, they come up with a new decision that leaves me scratching my head. It’s no secret that the Doctrine of Equivalents is on their hit list. Unless I’m mistaken, the next patentee-friendly doctrine to go might be the ancient and honorable rule that “features of the preferred embodiment should not be read into patent claims.”

The general rules of claim construction are familiar and, for the most part, make sense. Words used in patent claims should be given their ordinary meaning unless the patentee makes clear he means something else. Limitations that do not appear in the claims should not be read into the claims absent compelling reasons to do so. The “preferred embodiment” described in the specification is just that, and even an inferior product can infringe so long as it meets the claim limitations, etc. No argument from me there.

In Irdeto Access the issue was the meaning of “group” – specifically whether a “group” of subscribers to a television broadcast service can include all the subscribers or must necessarily be limited to less than all the subscribers. Ordinarily, and as a matter of plain English, a “group” can and does include everyone in a set as well as less than everyone in the set. The Court even acknowledged as much. However, because the only embodiment described in the patent made use of “groups” made up of fewer than all the subscribers, the Court held that the claims were limited in this manner and did not cover a system wherein a “group” could be the entire set of subscribers.

In a somewhat roundabout way, the Court read a feature of the preferred embodiment into the claims despite its numerous proscriptions against doing so and despite its numerous decisions that the “plain meaning” of claim terms ordinarily controls.

In the Court’s defense, it did point to arguments made during prosecution wherein the patentee argued that, “We believe that the modifiers for key — “box”, “group” and “service” — are very adequately described in the specification and therefore there is a complete foundation for the use of these terms in the claims.” With some justification, the Court held that the patentee himself limited his claims to the disclosed embodiment by making this argument.

What’s unclear at this point is whether this case turns on its somewhat unique facts – namely the unusual argument made during prosecution – or whether this signals a broad shift toward finding claim limitations by innuendo and inadvertence rather than actual intent of the patentee. It’s probably too early to tell, but I’m slightly worried. As a practical matter, the doctrine of equivalents (despite the Supreme Court holding in Festo) is largely a thing of the past. Now even literal infringment may be vulnerable. The new rule, I fear, may be, “if it’s not expressly described in your specification, your claims don’t cover it.” Hope I’m wrong.

Sometime in the next six to twelve months, the Federal Circuit will render its en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corporation et al. a decision that most likely will have profound consequences for patent owners and those accused of infringement. Is the panel decision in Irdeto Access a sign of things to come? Or is it the last attempt to advance a terribly wrong policy that deserves an early death? Time will tell.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Philip P. Mann Philip P. Mann

Philip P. Mann is a trial lawyer with over twenty years experience litigating patent, trademark, trade secret, and other intellectual property matters throughout the country.
Mann’s trial work has taken him to various federal and state courts where he’s tried both cases to…

Philip P. Mann is a trial lawyer with over twenty years experience litigating patent, trademark, trade secret, and other intellectual property matters throughout the country.
Mann’s trial work has taken him to various federal and state courts where he’s tried both cases to the court (a judge) as well as before juries. In addition to trial court work, Mann has performed appellate work before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Mann began his legal career in Chicago and Milwaukee before heading to Seattle where some of America’s most innovative companies were developing new technologies at breakneck speed. Before founding his own firm, he was a member of the Seattle Intellectual Property Law Firm, Christensen O’Connor Johnson Kindness.
Mann is an “AV” rated lawyer by Martindale Hubbell, indicative that he has reached the height of professional excellence and is recognized for the highest levels of skill and integrity.
He holds a degree in Electrical Engineering from the University of Illinois (Urbana) and received his law degree from the Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, Missouri. He is admitted to practice in the States of Illinois and Washington, as well as before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and in various courts around the country.