Benutzer-Werkzeuge

Webseiten-Werkzeuge


Seitenleiste

Anzeigen:

PatForce

www.stilbetten.de



Ein Projekt von:
Dr. Martin Meggle-Freund

us:markman_hearing

finanzcheck24.de

Markman Hearing

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996)

Vorprozessuale Anhörung zur Auslegung eines Patentanspruchs.

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS

Claim construction is a question of law for the Court. See Markman, 517 U.S. at 391.

In construing the claims of a patent, the words comprising the claims „are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.1))

Accordingly, courts must determine the meaning of claim terms in light of the resources a person with such skill would review to understand the patented technology.2) ))

First, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term in the context of the entire patent, including the specification. If the specification reveals a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess, the inventor's lexicography governs. Likewise, if the specification reveals an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor, the inventor's intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive.

In addition to the specification, courts must examine the patent's prosecution history-that is, the complete record of the proceedings before the PTO and including the prior art cited during the examination of the patent. Like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent. In particular, courts must look to the prosecution history to determine „whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.

Where the patentee has unequivocally disavowed a certain meaning to obtain his patent, the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer attaches and narrows the ordinary meaning of the claim congruent with the scope of the surrender.3)

Finally, in addition to evidence intrinsic to the patent at issue and its prosecution history, courts may look to „extrinsic evidence, which 'consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.4)

In general, extrinsic evidence is „less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.5)

1)
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc
2)
See id. at 1313 (quoting Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed.Cir.1998
3)
Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed.Cir.2003)
4)
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quoting Markman, 517 U.S. at 980)
5)
Id. at 1318
us/markman_hearing.txt · Zuletzt geändert: 2023/07/25 08:23 von 127.0.0.1