The oral argument of the day is from IN RE NORDT DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC<\/i>, No. 2017-1445 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018).<\/p>\n
The argument focuses on whether the term “injection molded” should have been treated as a structural limitation by the USPTO during prosecution.<\/p>\n
In part, the Federal Circuit opinion states:<\/p>\n
Moreover, as we have explained, “words of limitation that can connote with equal force a structural characteristic of the product or a process of manufacture are commonly and by default interpreted in their structural sense, unless the patentee has demonstrated otherwise.” 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp.,<\/i>350 F.3d 1365, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2003)<\/a>. Indeed, since Garnero,<\/i> we have in numerous instances held such limitations to convey structure even when they also describe a process of manufacture. See, e.g., <\/i>Hazani v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n,<\/i>126 F.3d 1473, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1997)<\/a> (concluding that “chemically engraved” was not a process term); Vanguard Prods. Corp. v. Parker Hannifin Corp.,<\/i> 234 F.3d 1370, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)<\/a> (holding that the claim term “integral” describes a structural requirement, not the particular manufacturing process discussed in the specification); 3M <\/i>Innovative Props. Co.,<\/i> 350 F.3d at 1371<\/a> (finding “superimposed” to describe a structural relationship and not a process); SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.,<\/i> 439 F.3d 1312, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Newman, J., dissenting)<\/a>(listing “a molded plastic” as an example of a process limitation that connotes structure). Here, not only does the specification itself convey a structural meaning to “injection molded,” Nordt has repeatedly represented that it does.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The court’s opinion is available [here].<\/a><\/p>\n
The oral argument is available here:<\/p>\n\n