Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Intellectual Property Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Courts

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Journal

2014

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Intellectual Property Law

Functional Elements In Patent Claims, As Construed By The Patent Trial And Appeal Board (Ptab), 13 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 251 (2014), Tom Brody Jan 2014

Functional Elements In Patent Claims, As Construed By The Patent Trial And Appeal Board (Ptab), 13 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 251 (2014), Tom Brody

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Claims in patents include both structural elements and functional elements. Functional elements occur in various categories: (1) Functional elements that mandate a particular range of structures that are able to perform the required function; (2) Functional elements that mandate a particular cooperation between structures; (3) Compound noun/function functional elements, (4) Active-type functional elements; (5) “Capable of”-type functional elements, (6) Single-word structural elements that are typical nouns, but that are also functional elements, e.g., “plasticizer,” and (7) Quasi-functional elements that lack any patentable weight. This article discloses which of these types of functional elements confers the broadest claim scope, and which …


What Reversals And Close Cases Reveal About Claim Construction: The Sequel, 13 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 525 (2014), Thomas Krause, Heather Auyang Jan 2014

What Reversals And Close Cases Reveal About Claim Construction: The Sequel, 13 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 525 (2014), Thomas Krause, Heather Auyang

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

This article updates and elaborates on last year’s What Close Cases and Reversals Reveal About Claim Construction at the Federal Circuit. Like the previous article, this article provides empirical insight into claim construction at the Federal Circuit, by approaching the question with two unique and distinct subsets of data: (1) “reversals” of all district court claim construction decisions since Phillips v. AWH, and (2) “close cases,” or post-Markman claim construction cases that had dissents in which a currently-active judge participated. The past year’s reversals data once again confirms that district courts persistently favor narrow claim interpretations in cases in which …