CALL US: 206.533.3854
CALL US  206.533.3854
AEON Law logo full color transparent
By Aidar Kemelbay - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46228204

Federal Circuit Rules Reading Process Limitation into Claim is Improper

Federal Circuit
Rules reading process limit
Into claim is wrong

The Federal Circuit has ruled that reading a process limitation into a product claim is improper where the patentee didn’t clearly and unmistakably disavow the claim scope and didn’t make it clear that the process was an essential part of the invention.

The case of Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corporation involved several Continental patents for a “multilayer electrical device . . . having a tooth structure” and methods for making the same.

According to the patents, multilayer electric devices “suffer from delamination, blistering, and other reliability problems,” especially when “subjected to thermal stress. The inventions purport to solve this problem by “forming a unique surface structure . . . comprised of teeth that are preferably angled or hooked like fangs or canine teeth to enable one layer to mechanically grip a second layer.”

The patents additionally “theorize[] . . . that the best methods for producing the teeth [are] to use non-homogenous materials and/or techniques . . . such that slowed and/or repeated etching will form teeth instead of a uniform etch.”

The specification then explains that “[o]ne technique for forming the teeth is . . . the swell and etch or desmear process, except that contrary to all known teachings in the prior art . . . a ‘double desmear process’ is utilized.”

Continental sued Intel and others for patent infringement.

The district court found no infringement, concluding that Intel had “met the exacting standard required” to read a limitation into the claims.

The district court read a limitation into the claims to require a repeated desmear process.

The federal circuit vacated the judgement and remanded, finding that the district court had erred in its claim construction, finding that it wasn’t clear that the repeated process was “an essential part of the claimed invention,” noting that “none of the asserted claims actually recite a “repeated desmear process.”

Related Articles

Just Because It’s on the Internet Doesn’t Mean It’s “Publicly Accessible”

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) has denied institution of a petition for inter partes review (IPR) because the petitioner failed to ...
Read More

Trademark Denied for “ChatGPT”

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has denied OpenAI’s applications to trademark “ChatGPT” and “GPT.” The Final Office Action states, “Registration is refused because the applied-for mark ...
Read More

Federal Circuit: “Improving User Experience” Isn’t Patentable

The Federal Circuit has affirmed a lower court decision that patent claims for methods and systems for improving how search results are displayed to users ...
Read More

Stay Informed

Sign up to receive Patent Poetry—a monthly roundup of key IP issues in our signature haiku format. Four articles (only 68 syllables); zero hassle.

SECTORS

HIGH
TECHNOLOGY

Artificial Intelligence

Blockchain & Cryptocurrency

Computer Technology & Software

Consumer Electronics

Electrical Devices

MECHANICAL
& PRODUCTS​

Cleantech

Mechanical Devices

Consumer & Retail Products

Hardware & Tools

Toys & Games

LIFE SCIENCES
& CHEMISTRY​

Biotechnology

Chemical Compounds

Digital Health

Healthcare Products

Pharmaceuticals

BRANDING
& CREATIVE​

Books & Publications

Brand Creation

Luxury Products

Photography & Video

Product Design

SERVICES

PROTECT

DEAL

DEFEND