{"id":2723,"date":"2010-08-13T17:29:30","date_gmt":"2010-08-13T23:29:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=2723"},"modified":"2010-08-13T17:29:30","modified_gmt":"2010-08-13T23:29:30","slug":"duratech-ind-v-bridgeview-mfg-oral-argument","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=2723","title":{"rendered":"Duratech Ind. v. Bridgeview Mfg. Oral Argument"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Federal Circuit heard oral argument in <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Duratech Ind.\u00a0v. Bridgeview Mfg.<\/span>\u00a0on August 2, 2010.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I&#8217;ve\u00a0commented a couple of times in recent days on\u00a0the <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Becton Dickinson v. Tyco<\/span> decision where the judges appeared to ignore the rule of <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Liebel-Flarsheim v. Medrad<\/span> that a claim should be construed to preserve its validity only when\u00a0the claim\u00a0is first determined to be ambiguous after applying all other rules of claim construction.<\/p>\n<p>The following sound bite from the recent oral argument in <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Duratech Ind.\u00a0v. Bridgeview Mfg.<\/span>\u00a0is another example of a judge reciting the obsolete canon of claim construction that a claim should be\u00a0construed to preserve its validity.\u00a0 [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/08\/2010-1078-excerpt-1.mp3\">Listen<\/a>].\u00a0 That is simply no longer\u00a0the law in view of the <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Liebel-Flarsheim<\/span> and <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Phillips<\/span> decisions which require that one construe a claim to preserve its validity only after all other rules of claim construction have been exhausted and the claim is still ambiguous.<\/p>\n<p>You can listen to the entire oral argument here: [<a href=\"http:\/\/oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov\/Audiomp3\/2010-1078.mp3\">Listen<\/a>].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Duratech Ind.\u00a0v. Bridgeview Mfg.\u00a0on August 2, 2010.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 I&#8217;ve\u00a0commented a couple of times in recent days on\u00a0the Becton Dickinson v. Tyco decision where the judges appeared to ignore the rule of Liebel-Flarsheim v. Medrad that a claim should be construed to preserve its validity only when\u00a0the claim\u00a0is first determined [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2723"}],"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=2723"}],"version-history":[{"count":16,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2723\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2772,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2723\/revisions\/2772"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2723"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2723"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2723"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}