{"id":6826,"date":"2014-07-11T19:31:47","date_gmt":"2014-07-12T01:31:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=6826"},"modified":"2014-07-11T19:31:47","modified_gmt":"2014-07-12T01:31:47","slug":"optional-language-in-patent-specification","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=6826","title":{"rendered":"Optional Language in Patent Specification"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Today&#8217;s Federal Circuit opinion in <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">H-W Technology, L.C. v. Overstock.com, Inc.<\/span>, ___ F. 3d ___ (Fed. Cir. 2014) is of interest for at least two reasons. \u00a0\u00a0For one, the case adds to the court&#8217;s growing body of case law that holds a claim invalid when the claim includes both method and apparatus claim elements. \u00a0In today&#8217;s opinion, Chief Judge Prost notes:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>As noted by the district court, this case is very similar to two cases, <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.<\/span>, 430<br \/>\nF.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005), and <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">In re Katz Interactive\u00a0Call Processing Patent Litigation<\/span>, 639 F.3d 1303,\u00a01318 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In each of those cases this court\u00a0held claims indefinite for combining two classes of invention.<\/p>\n<p>The claim at issue in <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">IPXL<\/span> is reproduced below:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px; \">The system of claim 2 [including an input means]<br \/>\nwherein the predicted transaction information<br \/>\ncomprises both a transaction type and transaction<br \/>\nparameters associated with that transaction type,<br \/>\nand the user uses the input means to either change<br \/>\nthe predicted transaction information or accept<br \/>\nthe displayed transaction type and transaction<br \/>\nparameters.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">IPXL<\/span>, 430 F.3d at 1384 (citation omitted).<\/p>\n<p>The <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">IPXL<\/span> court reasoned as follows:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px; \">[I]t is unclear whether infringement of [the claim]<br \/>\noccurs when one creates a system that allows the<br \/>\nuser to change the predicted transaction information<br \/>\nor accept the displayed transaction, or<br \/>\nwhether infringement occurs when the user actually<br \/>\nuses the input means to change transaction<br \/>\ninformation or uses the input means to accept a<br \/>\ndisplayed transaction. Because [the claim] recites<br \/>\nboth a system and the method for using that system,<br \/>\nit does not apprise a person of ordinary skill<br \/>\nin the art of its scope, and it is invalid under section<br \/>\n112, paragraph 2.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Id<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Similarly, the court in <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">In re Katz<\/span> stated:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px; \">Like the language used in the claim at issue in<br \/>\n<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">IPXL<\/span> (&#8220;wherein . . . the user uses&#8221;), the language<br \/>\nused in Katz&#8217;s claims (&#8220;wherein . . . callers digitally<br \/>\nenter data&#8221; and &#8220;wherein . . . callers provide . . .<br \/>\ndata&#8221;) is directed to user actions, not system capabilities.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">In re Katz<\/span>, 639 F.3d at 1318.<\/p>\n<p>The present case falls squarely within the <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">IPXL<\/span> and<br \/>\n<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">In re Katz<\/span> holdings. Here, the disputed language (&#8220;wherein<br \/>\nsaid user completes . . .&#8221; and &#8220;wherein said user selects<br \/>\n. . .&#8221;) is nearly identical to the disputed language in<br \/>\nthose cases. And, as in those cases, it is unclear here<br \/>\nwhen infringement would occur. Claim 17 is thus indefinite.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">H-W Technology<\/span>, slip opinion at pp. 12-13.<\/p>\n<p>Also of note is the attention paid by the court to the use of optional language in the patent specification. \u00a0Judge Prost wrote for the court:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Regardless of whether this excerpt clearly contains\u00a0the missing limitation, \u201cno-contact transactions\u201d appear\u00a0to be <em>optional<\/em> premium listing services. <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">See<\/span> <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">id<\/span>. col. 22 ll.\u00a014\u201320 (\u201cThe services may be categorized according to\u00a0baseline directory services 1901, premium listing services\u00a01902, and advertising services 1903. A description of the\u00a0services that <em>can be <\/em>offered under each category and how\u00a0these are supported by converged communications content\u00a0distribution platform owner 1204 (FIG. 12) are described\u00a0below.\u201d (emphasis added)). The optional nature of such\u00a0services negates any argument that such a limitation in\u00a0the claim is implied as necessary to the invention. <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">See<\/span> <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Phillips<\/span>, 415 F.3d at 1323 (warning against \u201cimporting\u00a0limitations from the specification into the claims\u201d).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">H-W Technology<\/span>, slip opinion at pp. 7-8.<\/p>\n<p>You can read the court&#8217;s opinion here: [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.cafc.uscourts.gov\/images\/stories\/opinions-orders\/14-1054.Opinion.7-9-2014.1.PDF\">link<\/a>].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Today&#8217;s Federal Circuit opinion in H-W Technology, L.C. v. Overstock.com, Inc., ___ F. 3d ___ (Fed. Cir. 2014) is of interest for at least two reasons. \u00a0\u00a0For one, the case adds to the court&#8217;s growing body of case law that holds a claim invalid when the claim includes both method and apparatus claim elements. \u00a0In [&hellip;]<\/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\/6826"}],"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=6826"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6826\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6832,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6826\/revisions\/6832"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6826"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6826"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6826"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}