BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL VOLUME 25 NUMBER 2 SPRING 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLES PATENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION: A MODERN SYNTHESIS AND STRUCTURED FRAMEWORK ............................................ 711 PeterS. Menell, Matthew D. Powers, & Steven C Carlson COMMUNICATIONS PRIVACY IN THE MILITARY...........................831 Justin Holbrook THE IMPERFECT IS THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD: ANTICIRCUMVENTION VERSUS OPEN USER INNOVATION ............................................... 909 Wendy Seliker LAW, TECHNOLOGY, AND SHIFTING POWER RELATIONS ............................ 973 Bert-Jaap Koops WHAT PAYMENT INTERMEDIARIES ARE DOING ABOUT ONLINE LIABILITY AND WHY IT MATTERS ...................................... 1037 Mark MacCarthy LICENSING COMPLEMENTARY PATENTS: "PATENT TROLLS," MARKET STRUCTURE, AND "EXCESSIVE" ROYALTIES ............................. 1121 Anne Lqyne-Farrar& Klaus M. Schmidt SUBSCRIBER INFORMATION The Berkeley Technology Law Journal (ISSN 1086-3818), a continuation of the Hzgh Technology Law journal effective Volume 11, is edited by the students of the University of California School of Law, Berkeley (Boalt Hall), and published four times each year (March, June, September, January) by the Regents of the University of California, Berkeley, Journal Publications, School of Law, 2850 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 561 #7220 Berkeley, CA 94705-7220. Periodicals Postage Rate Paid at Berkeley, CA 94704-9998, and at additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Journal Publications, 311 U.C. Berkeley School of Law, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-7200. Correspondence. Address all correspondence regarding, subscriptions, address changes, claims for non-receipt, single copies, advertising, and permission to reprint to Journal Publications, 2850 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 561 #7220 Berkeley, CA 94705-7220; (510) 643-6600; JournalPublications@ law.berkeley.edu. Authors: see section entitled Information for Authors. Subscriptions. Annual subscriptions are $65.00 for individuals, and $85.00 for organizations. Single issues are $27.00. Please allow two months for receipt of the first issue. Payment may be made by check, international money order, or credit card (MasterCard/Visa). Domestic claims for non- receipt of issues should be made within 90 days of the month of publication; overseas claims should be made within 180 days. Thereafter, the regular back issue rate ($27.00) will be charged for replacement. Overseas delivery is not guaranteed. Form. The text and citations in the journal conform generally to the THE CHICAGO MANUAL OF STYLE (15th ed. 2003) and to THE BLUEBOOK: A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION (Columbia Law Review Ass'n et al. eds., 18th ed. 2005). Please cite this issue of the Berkeley Technology Law Journalas 25 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. - (2010). BTLJ ONLINE The full text and abstracts of many previously published Berkeley Technolog Law journal articles can be found at http://www.btlj.org. Our site also contains a cumulative index, general information about the journal,selected materials related to technology law, and links to other related pages. 0713-0832 MENELL WEB (DO NOT DELETE) 11/21/2010 10:18 AM PATENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION: A MODERN SYNTHESIS AND STRUCTURED FRAMEWORK Peter S. Menell,† Matthew D. Powers,†† & Steven C. Carlson††† TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 714 II. A STRUCTURED FRAMEWORK FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................................. 717 A. DERIVING MEANING FROM CLAIMS ..................................................... 718 1. Claim Drafting: The Genesis and Evolution of Claim Terms .............. 719 2. Sources for Deriving Claim Meaning ................................................... 720 a) Principal Source: Intrinsic Evidence ............................... 722 i) Specification ............................................................ 722 ii) Prosecution History ............................................... 723 iii) Related and Foreign Applications ........................ 723 b) Extrinsic Evidence Permissible, But It May Not Contradict or Override Intrinsic Evidence .................... 725 i) Illustrations of Reliance (and Non- Reliance) upon Extrinsic Evidence...................... 727 ii) Conclusory Expert Opinions Should Be Disregarded ............................................................. 729 B. A STRUCTURED APPROACH TO CLAIM CONSTRUCTION: TWO STAGES OF ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 730 1. Step 1: Is Construction of a Claim Term Required? ............................ 730 © 2010 Peter S. Menell, Matthew D. Powers, and Steven C. Carlson. † Professor of Law and Director, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, University of California at Berkeley School of Law. This Article grew out of the Patent Case Management Judicial Guide, a treatise developed for federal judges published in 2009 by the Federal Judicial Center. We worked with leading patent jurists, practitioners, and academics in developing this guide. We want to thank the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology and the Federal Judicial Center for their generous support of these projects. We owe special thanks for Judge Ronald Whyte, Judge Kathleen O’Malley, Lynn Pasahow, James Pooley, Mark Lemley, George Pappas, Nick Brown, Carolyn Chang, Tom Fletcher, Jeff Homrig, Marc David Peters, and Sue Vastano Vaughan for their contributions to this project. We also thank Ashley Doty and Jason Romrell for their research assistance in the preparation of this Article and Laura Rocheloios and By Design Legal Graphics for their assistance with illustrations. †† Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP. ††† Principal, Fish & Richardson PC. 0713-0832 MENELL WEB (DO NOT DELETE) 11/21/2010 10:18 AM 712 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 25:711 a) Is There a Genuine Dispute About the Claim Term? .................................................................................... 731 b) Would Claim Construction of the Term Help the Jury? ............................................................................... 731 c) Is Claim Construction of the Term a Priority? .............. 732 d) Has the Term Been Construed Before? .......................... 732 e) Is the Term Amenable to Construction? ........................ 733 i) Lay Terms ................................................................ 734 ii) Terms of Degree ..................................................... 736 iii) Technical Terms ..................................................... 737 2. Step 2: Interpretation of Claim Language ............................................ 737 a) General Framework ........................................................... 737 b) Claim Construction Methodology ................................... 739 c) Misuse of “Ordinary Meaning” ........................................ 743 d) Interpreting Claim Language in Light of the Specification ........................................................................ 745 i) The Role of Preferred Embodiments in Claim Construction ................................................ 745 (1) Claim Scope Generally Includes Preferred Embodiments ................................................. 746 (2) Is the Patent Limited to the Preferred Embodiments? ............................................... 746 (3) Does the Number or Range of Embodiments Affect the Scope of the Claims? ......................................................... 748 (4) Does Ambiguity in a Claim Term Limit Its Scope to Preferred Embodiment(s)? ............ 749 ii) Characterizations of “The Invention” or “The Present Invention” ....................................... 750 iii) Distinctions Over the Prior Art ........................... 751 iv) Consistent Usage of Claim Terms ....................... 752 e) Prosecution Disclaimers .................................................... 752 f) Looking to Other Claims: The Doctrine of Claim Differentiation ......................................................... 753 g) Significance of the “Preamble” in Claim Construction ........................................................................ 755 3. Claim Terms Having Conventional, Presumed, or Established Meanings ............................................................................................ 757 4. Interpreting Terms to Preserve Validity ............................................... 764 C. SPECIAL CASE: MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION CLAIMS ............................... 765 1. Step 1: Is the Term in Question “Means-Plus-Function”? ................... 766 2. Step 2: Interpretation of Means-Plus-Function Claim Terms ............... 768 a) Step 2A: Identify Claim Term Function ......................... 768 b) Step 2B: Identify “Structure, Material, or Acts” ............ 768 0713-0832 MENELL WEB (DO NOT DELETE) 11/21/2010 10:18 AM 2010] PATENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION 713 c) Step 2C: “Equivalents Thereof” ...................................... 769 d) Specific Rule for Means-Plus-Function Claims in the Computer Software Context ...................................... 770 D. DYSFUNCTIONAL CLAIMS: MISTAKES AND INDEFINITENESS .......... 770 1. Mistakes ............................................................................................. 770 2. Indefiniteness ....................................................................................... 772 E. DEFERENCE TO PRIOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION RULINGS ...............