Abstract
The process of claim construction is the most important part of patent litigation. Courts employ a number of rules, or canons, to reach an understanding of what patent claims mean. Of these, the doctrine of claim differentiation has arguably had the most significant impact on claim construction. Understood most broadly, the claim differentiation doctrine provides that no two claims in the same patent should be interpreted to have the same scope. As a general matter, applying the doctrine of claim differentiation results in broader constructions of patent claims, because it is most commonly used to prevent defendants from limiting a broad genus claim to the range of embodiments actually disclosed or more explicitly recited in other claims. Sometimes this is the right result, because defendants are improperly seeking to limit broader genus claims to the preferred embodiments disclosed in the specification. But at other times it leads to problematic results by expanding claims to cover things the patentee never intended. In this Article, I conduct an empirical review of claim differentiation decisions in the Federal Circuit and in the district courts, and I suggest limiting
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.