Patent Claim Construction: A Modern Synthesis and Structured Framework By Peter S. Menell,1 Matthew D. Powers,2 and Steven C. Carlson3 ABSTRACT The construction of patent claims plays a critical role in nearly every patent case. It is central to evaluation of infringement and validity, and can affect or determine the outcome of other significant issues such as unenforceability, enablement, and remedies. Yet jurists and scholars have long lamented the challenges of construing patent claim terms. Drawing upon more than a decade of working with the Federal Judicial Center, leading jurists in those districts with the largest patent dockets, experienced litigators, and academics, this article provides a pragmatic and cohesive framework and roadmaps for navigating this rapidly evolving landscape as well as guidance on the best practices for managing claim construction. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 4 II. A STRUCTURED FRAMEWORK FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION..................... 6 A. Deriving Meaning From Claims ............................................................................. 7 1. Claim Drafting: The Genesis and Evolution of Claim Terms ........................... 7 2. Sources for Deriving Claim Meaning................................................................. 9 a) Principal Source: Intrinsic Evidence............................................................. 10 i) Specification ............................................................................................. 10 ii) Prosecution History................................................................................... 11 iii) Related and Foreign Applications............................................................. 11 b) Extrinsic Evidence Permissible, But It May Not Contradict or Override Intrinsic Evidence ................................................................................................. 13 i) Illustrations of Reliance (and Non-reliance) upon Extrinsic Evidence .... 14 ii) Conclusory Expert Opinions Should Be Disregarded .............................. 16 1 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. 2 Partner, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP. 3 Principal, Fish & Richardson PC. 1 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1476395 B. A Structured Approach to Claim Construction: Two Stages of Analysis ........... 16 1. Step 1: Is Construction of a Claim Required? .................................................. 17 a) Is There a Genuine Dispute about the Claim Term?..................................... 19 b) Would Claim Construction of the Term Help the Jury?............................... 19 c) Is Claim Construction of the Term a Priority?.............................................. 19 d) Has the Term Been Construed Before? ........................................................ 19 e) Is the Term Amenable to Construction? ....................................................... 20 i) Lay Terms ................................................................................................. 22 ii) Terms of Degree ....................................................................................... 23 iii) Technical Terms........................................................................................ 24 2. Step 2: Interpretation of Claim Language......................................................... 25 a) General framework ....................................................................................... 25 b) Claim Construction Methodology ................................................................ 26 c) Misuse of “Ordinary Meaning” .................................................................... 30 d) Interpreting Claim Language in Light of the Specification.......................... 31 i) The Role of Preferred Embodiments in Claim Construction.................... 31 1. Claim Scope Generally Includes Preferred Embodiments................ 31 2. Is the Patent Limited to the Preferred Embodiments? ...................... 32 3. Does the Number and/or Range of Embodiments Affect the Scope of the Claims?................................................................................................ 33 4. Does Ambiguity in a Claim Term Limit its Scope to Preferred Embodiment(s)?........................................................................................ 34 ii) Characterizations of “The Invention” or “The Present Invention”........... 35 iii) Distinctions Over the Prior Art................................................................. 36 iv) Consistent Usage of Claim Terms ............................................................ 36 e) Prosecution Disclaimers................................................................................ 37 f) Looking to Other Claims: The Doctrine of Claim Differentiation ............... 37 g) Significance of the “Preamble” in Claim Construction ................................ 39 3. Claim Terms Having Conventional, Presumed, or Established Meanings....... 41 4. Interpreting Terms to Preserve Validity ........................................................... 51 C. Special Case: Means-Plus-Function Claims ......................................................... 51 1. Step 1: Is the Term in Question “Means-Plus-Function”? ............................... 52 2. Step 2: Interpretation of Means-Plus-Function Claim Terms........................... 54 a) Step 2A: Identify Claim Term Function ....................................................... 54 b) Step 2B: Identify “Structure, Material, or Acts”........................................... 54 c) Step 2C: “Equivalents Thereof”.................................................................... 55 d) Specific Rule for Means-Plus-Function Claims in the Computer Software Context.................................................................................................................. 55 D. Dysfunctional Claims: Mistakes and Indefiniteness............................................. 55 1. Mistakes............................................................................................................ 56 2. Indefiniteness.................................................................................................... 57 E. Deference to Prior Claim Construction Rulings ................................................... 58 1. Distinguishing Among Preclusion and Estoppel Doctrines.............................. 59 2. Issue Preclusion/Collateral Estoppel ................................................................ 60 a) Identity of Issues........................................................................................... 61 2 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1476395 b) Actual Litigation........................................................................................... 61 c) Full and Fair Opportunity to Litigate............................................................ 62 d) Determination Was Essential to the Final Judgment .................................... 63 i) Finality ...................................................................................................... 63 1. Summary Judgment .......................................................................... 63 2. Preliminary Injunction...................................................................... 64 3. Settlement ......................................................................................... 64 ii) Essential to the Final Judgment ................................................................ 66 e) Reasoned Deference as a Prudent Approach to Issue Preclusion................. 66 3. Judicial Estoppel............................................................................................... 67 4. Stare Decisis..................................................................................................... 68 III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURE......................................................... 69 A. Patent Local Rules ................................................................................................ 70 B. Timing of Markman Hearings .............................................................................. 73 C. Streamlining the Pre-Markman Process................................................................ 74 1. Mandatory Disclosure of Positions................................................................... 74 a) Early Disclosure of Infringement and Invalidity Contentions...................... 74 b) Disclosure of Claims to Construe