{"id":2773,"date":"2010-08-14T14:20:38","date_gmt":"2010-08-14T20:20:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=2773"},"modified":"2010-08-14T14:20:38","modified_gmt":"2010-08-14T20:20:38","slug":"oral-argument-of-the-month-laryngeal-mask-co-ltd-v-ambu","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=2773","title":{"rendered":"Oral Argument of the Month &#8212; Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd. v. Ambu"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Federal Circuit heard oral argument in <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd. v. Ambu<\/span> earlier this month.\u00a0 The court has not yet issued its opinion in the case.\u00a0 The case concerns US patents <a href=\"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/08\/brain-100.pdf\">7,156,100<\/a>\u00a0and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/08\/brain-697.pdf\">5,303,697<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>This was an interesting oral argument.\u00a0 It is one of those arguments that is good for\u00a0new prosecutors to listen to so that they are aware of the arguments\u00a0that will be brought against their work product.\u00a0 The oral argument\u00a0included\u00a0a host\u00a0of arguments that go toward the preparation and\u00a0prosecution of an application.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">&#8220;The Present Invention&#8221;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Usually, &#8220;the present invention&#8221; argument is raised by an accused infringer who\u00a0wants to narrow claim language to what was described as &#8220;the present invention&#8221; or &#8220;the invention&#8221; in the specification or prosecution history.\u00a0 This case was a little different in that the patentee (rather than the accused infringer)\u00a0argued that the language describing &#8220;the present invention&#8221; did not include the element that the\u00a0accused infringer\u00a0was trying to read into the claim.\u00a0 Therefore, the patentee argued that\u00a0the claim should be construed broadly based upon &#8220;the present invention&#8221; language.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Detailed Description of the Invention vs. Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Similar to the above, use of &#8220;the invention&#8221;\u00a0as part of\u00a0the Detailed Description\u00a0heading was this time argued by the\u00a0accused infringer\u00a0to limit the claims to the disclosed embodiment.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Disclosure of a Single Embodiment<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Judge Lourie asked about the disclosure of a single embodiment described as the preferred embodiment.\u00a0\u00a0He queried whether disclosure of a single embodiment described as &#8220;the preferred embodiment&#8221; might require &#8220;preferred&#8221; to be read as &#8220;only.&#8221;\u00a0\u00a0You can listen to\u00a0his comment\u00a0here: [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/08\/2010-1028-excerpt-11.mp3\">Listen<\/a>].<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Broad Summary language<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The patentee argued for a broad claim construction based on a broad Summary section of the patent.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Language from the\u00a0Brief Description\u00a0of the Drawings<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The accused infringer argued that the\u00a0claims should be limited\u00a0based on use of the phrase &#8220;the present invention&#8221; to describe Fig. 1 of the patent.<\/p>\n<p>You can listen to the entire oral argument here: [<a href=\"http:\/\/oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov\/Audiomp3\/2010-1028.mp3\">Listen<\/a>].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Federal Circuit heard oral argument in Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd. v. Ambu earlier this month.\u00a0 The court has not yet issued its opinion in the case.\u00a0 The case concerns US patents 7,156,100\u00a0and 5,303,697. This was an interesting oral argument.\u00a0 It is one of those arguments that is good for\u00a0new prosecutors to listen to so [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2773"}],"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=2773"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2773\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2790,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2773\/revisions\/2790"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2773"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2773"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2773"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}