His poetry makes moving use of his erratic spelling, turning it into a visible trace of his struggle to
claim the language as a medium for feeling.
No doubt that it satisfies the legal requirements
for claim language, but it almost takes one's breath away.
It turns out some of your applicants might use that junior high class or similar experience to
claim a language fluency on their resumes.
@Tom — Do you mean is it interesting that HS uses the word «babble» a lot because it's likely the root word comes from the Tower of Babel where the
bible claims the languages were confused, much like HS is in every post?
The Aylus decision points out that this strategy is not without risk because any statement made in a preliminary response, including claim construction arguments, may be used later to
construe claim language.
Using intentionally
vague claim language like «trigger event» and «perception information,» Lodsys argues that the patents cover today's technology.
With that information in hand, IP practitioners can use semantic analytics engines optimized
for claims language to help patent applicants draft claims that are more likely to withstand an examiner's scrutiny.
In all jurisdictions, any claim construction analysis naturally begins with
the claim language itself, and is followed by what the specification states.
Know where the landmines are (as they relate to
your claim language in dispute) relating to infringement and validity.
But this only benefits a defendant if
the claim language coupled with the specification supports a given non-infringement theory, with prosecution history providing just another indication of the defendant's proposed claim construction being the correct one.
At a minimum, you are going to want to show
the claim language and probably a lot of the patent specification and drawings.
In Mostar, the plaintiff had not included
the claim language but according to the decision had listed the claims of the patents being asserted and the names of the defendant's allegedly infringing products.
An investigation of the asserted patents,
the claim language and the potentially infringing products can help clarify the level of detail that can be included in the statement of claim.
First, in situations where the district court relies only on the intrinsic evidence (
claim language, specification and prosecution history), its ruling is subject to de novo review.
In that decision (Apotex Inc. v. Allergan Inc., 2012 FCA 308), the court did look to the description, to incorporate an improved safety profile into the inventive concept, even though there was no explicit reference to the safety profile in
the claim language.
No matter the approach, parties should carefully consider
the claim language, the patent as a whole, the state of the art, the person skilled in the art and work with their experts to get their facts and arguments before the court.
Claim language is shown in conjunction with the PowerPoint litigation graphic to give it context and meaning.
The doctrine of equivalents enables the court to capture variants outside of
the claim language, even after applying a «purposive construction».