{"id":11682,"date":"2021-10-12T10:34:59","date_gmt":"2021-10-12T16:34:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=11682"},"modified":"2021-10-12T15:12:44","modified_gmt":"2021-10-12T21:12:44","slug":"each","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=11682","title":{"rendered":"“Each”"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

I’m always interested to see the word “each” come up in claim construction or infringement cases. The Federal Circuit’s decision in Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia Solutions and Networks OY et al.<\/em>, 2020, 1440, 2020-1443 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 12, 2021)<\/a> addressed the word “each” again. This time around the court appears to treat the word “each” as merely superfluous and thus providing no distinguishing effect in a doctrine of claim differentiation analysis. That is to say, the court concluded that the various claims all say the same thing, just differently phrased — not to be confused with the various claims saying different things, just differently phrased.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judge Prost writing for the court stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Traxcell first argues that the claims don\u2019t require location to be tied to specific devices. On this point, Traxcell relies on the doctrine of claim differentiation. Because some <\/em>claims recite the \u201clocation for each . . . device,\u201d it says, the claims without \u201ceach\u201d do not require per-device locations. But claim differentiation is \u201ca guide, not a rigid rule,\u201d especially if the claim language is clearly to the contrary. Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.<\/em>, 830 F.3d 1374, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. HemCon, Inc.<\/em>, 672 F.3d 1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). And Traxcell provides no adequate reason why the mere presence of \u201ceach\u201d should have this importance\u2014especially where the various claims all just seem to say the same thing differently phrased. As we explained, each claim recites the location of a device<\/em>, or \u201clocating\u201d a device. See, e.g.<\/em>, \u2019284 patent claim 1 (\u201clocating at least one said wireless device\u201d). Not the average <\/em>of many locations. The fact that some claims require multiple device locations (i.e., locations for \u201ceach\u201d device) does not mean that broader claims only requiring a single device location need not be tied to a specific device.<\/p>Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia Solutions and Networks OY et al.<\/em>, 2020, 1440, 2020-1443 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 12, 2021)(slip op. at pages 9-10).<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Here are some previous posts where the word “each” came up: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[\u201cEach\u201d \u2014 Hard cases make bad law]<\/a>,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[The meaning of \u201ceach\u201d \u2026.<\/a>], <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[\u201cEach of a plurality\u201d<\/a>], and <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Oral Argument of the Month: Timebase v. Thomson<\/a>]. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

By the way, I seem to recall that there was another “each” case recently. If I run across it in the future, I’ll add it here.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I’m always interested to see the word “each” come up in claim construction or infringement cases. The Federal Circuit’s decision in Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia Solutions and Networks OY et al., 2020, 1440, 2020-1443 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 12, 2021) addressed the word “each” again. This time around the court appears to treat the word […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11682"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11682"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11682\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11685,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11682\/revisions\/11685"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11682"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11682"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11682"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}