Intellectual Property Law

Sufficient structure recited in claim limitation using "means" to prevent application of § 112 ¶ 6

By McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.

In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's claim construction and the associated summary judgment of noninfringement.  The district court held the relevant claim term was a means-plus-function limitation, as it used the word "means," as well as because in an interview summary in the prosecution history, it appeared the USPTO interpreted the term as a means-plus-function clause.  Based on this interpretation, the court granted summary judgment of noninfringement, as the accused device did not have the required function.

The Federal Circuit reversed, holding the limitation in question was not a means plus function limitation as it recited the "exact structure that performs the function[] in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure."  Further, the attorney's remarks when the amendment was made indicated that the structure set forth in the claim was intended to perform the function.  As a result, the claim element was not properly considered a means-plus-function element.  Under the revised claim construction, there were genuine issues of material fact regarding infringement, resulting in the reversal and remand.

More details of TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp. after the jump.

[More]

Full post as published by FileWrapper on January 30, 2008 (boomark / email).