Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB’s Unreasonably Broad BRI of term

Federal CircuitIn re Smith Int’l, Inc., (Fed. Cir. Sep. 26, 2017) (Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes, J.) (Opinion for the court, Lourie, J.).

Smith International owns U.S. Patent 6,732,817 (’817 Patent) directed to a downhole drilling tool that includes a “generally cylindrical tool body” associated with other device components, such as a mandrel and a cam sleeve. The ’817 Patent was the subject of an ex parte reexamination, brought during a patent infringement case Smith asserted against Baker Hughes. During the reexamination, both the PTO and the Board agreed that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “body” in the claims could encompass other components, because the claims lacked further limiting features, and the specification does not prohibit this reading. Given this broad meaning of “body,” the Board found that several claims were anticipated and obvious. Smith appealed.

The Court reversed, finding that the Board’s construction of “body” was unreasonably broad. While the claims do recite “body” without further elaboration, the specification does not use the term generically. The “body” is consistently referred to as a component distinct from others, such as the mandrel. Additionally, the Court rejected the Board’s reasoning that the specification did not proscribe its broad reading. The broadest reasonable interpretation “is an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is consistent with the specification.” The Board’s logic would improperly require the broadest possible (not reasonable) interpretation, absent an express definition or prohibition.

The Board’s findings of anticipation relied on its unreasonably broad construction of “body,” which lacked substantial evidence.

The broadest reasonable interpretation of a term in a patent claim must be consistent with the specification. An analysis looking for whether the broadest possible meaning is proscribed by the specification is a backwards approach to claim interpretations and is improper.

About Troutman Sanders and the Federal Circuit Review

Founded in 1897, Troutman Sanders LLP is an international law firm with more than 650 lawyers practicing in 16 offices located throughout the United States and Asia. Each week, partners Joe Robinson and Bob Schaffer, succinctly summarize the preceding week of Federal Circuit precedential patent opinions. They provide the pertinent facts, issues, and holdings. This Review allows you to keep abreast of the Federal Circuit’s activities – important for everyone concerned with intellectual property. IPWatchdog.com is pleased to publish these summaries each week.

The Author

Joseph Robinson

Joseph Robinson has over 20 years of experience in all aspects of intellectual property law. He focuses his practice in the pharmaceutical, life sciences, biotechnology, and medical device fields. His practice encompasses litigation, including Hatch-Waxman litigation; licensing; counseling; due diligence; and patent and trademark prosecution. He has served as litigation counsel in a variety of patent and trademark disputes in many different jurisdictions, and has also served as appellate counsel before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Joe also focuses on complex inter partes matters before the U.S Patent and Trademark Office, inventorship disputes, reexaminations and reissues. His experience includes numerous interferences, a particular advantage in new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office post-grant proceedings. He also counsels on patent–related U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues, including citizen petitions, Orange Book listing, and trademark issues. For more information and to contact Joe please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.

Joseph Robinson

Robert Schaffer is an intellectual property partner at Troutman Sanders. Bob applies more than 30 years of experience to IP counseling and litigation. His work includes patent procurement, strategic planning and transactional advice, due diligence investigations, district court patent cases, and Federal Circuit appeals. He regularly handles complex and high-profile domestic and international patent portfolios, intellectual property agreements and licensing, IP evaluations for collaborations, mergers, and acquisitions. In disputed court cases Bob’s work includes representing and counseling client in ANDA litigations, complex patent infringement cases and appeals, and multidistrict and international cases. In disputed Patent Office matters his work includes representing and counseling clients in interferences, reexaminations, reissues, post-grant proceedings, and in European Oppositions. For more information and to contact Bob please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently No Comments comments.