The Federal Circuit was created to ensure patent law consistency by reducing inter-circuit splits.1 For decades, the Federal Circuit has oscillated between two standards associated with claim construction. This Article attempts to explain, analyze, and propose a solution to the intra-court split on claim construction. Part I examines the historical overview of patent litigation. This section briefly describes patent document sections, protectable patent rights, and patent interpretation shifts, from relying on the patent’s specification, to the patent’s claim. Part II examines current patent law. This section briefly describes how patent claims are interpreted and what role the specification aids in the interpretation. Part III examines the Federal Circuit’s intra-court split regarding the role that the specification plays in determining the limitations imposed on patent claims. This section is split into four parts: (A) the exacting presumption standard is analyzed through two cases; (B) the holistic standard is analyzed through two cases and subsequently compared against the exacting presumption standard; (C) a proposed theoretical standard is explained and analyzed; and (D) the current Federal Circuit standards are evaluated and analyzed to determine which one is more likely to prevail.
Perez, Erik I.,
A PROPOSED ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESOLVING AN INTRA-COURT SPLIT ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AMBIGUITY,
39 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 92
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol39/iss1/3