Blog March 23, 2020
Clear Disavowal from Statement that Single Approach Addressed All "Objects of the Invention"
- Person title
Pacing Techs., LLC v. Garmin Int'l, Inc., ___F.3d ___ (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2015) (Lourie, MOORE, Reyna) (S.D. Cal.: Benitez) (3 of 5 stars)
Federal Circuit affirms summary judgment of noninfringement where a clear disavowal in the patent specification, combined with language in the claim's preamble, required a narrow claim construction.
The claim preamble was limiting because the term, "[a] repetitive motion pacing system for pacing a user" provided antecedent basis for, and was necessary to understanding, several terms in the body.
Properly interpreted, the preamble required that the claimed system produce a "sensible tempo" (e.g., an audible rhythm) that would assist a user in setting a pace while exercising. Although the preamble's plain meaning included no such limitation, the specification unmistakably disavowed any broader scope by stating that the various objects of the invention would be accomplished with a system "that is adapted to producing a sensible tempo." Slip op. at 8.
It did not matter that one embodiment described no audible tempo, but discussed supplying video of passing landscape such that the speed of the landscape's passage matched the user's pace. Such did not affect interpretation of the preamble for two reasons. First, "[j]ust because an embodiment does not expressly disclose a feature does not mean that embodiment excludes that feature." Id. at 9. Second, the patent included seven other independent claims that used different preamble language, and there is no requirement that every claim cover every embodiment.
Garmin's accused devices produce no "sensible tempo," and do not infringe as a matter of law. Displaying the rate of a user's pace (e.g., "100 steps per minute") is not producing a sensible tempo.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Blog November 4, 2019
Legal Alert: Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. - What Did the Federal Circuit Do?
Blog November 4, 2019
Legal Alert | Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. — What Did the Federal Circuit Do?
Blog August 17, 2018
En Banc Federal Circuit: Patentee's Service of Complaint, Followed by Voluntary Dismissal, Triggers IPR Clock
Blog October 5, 2017
Legal Alert: Federal Circuit Faults PTO's Approach to Claim Amendments During IPR, But Allows PTO to Try to Fix the Problem
Blog May 16, 2016
Software Claims Directed to Specific Improvements in Computer Operations May be "Non-Abstract"
Blog May 2, 2016
Corporate Residence Definition in Patent Cases Unchanged by Congressional Revisions to Venue Statute; Minimum Contacts Under Beverly Hills Fan Reaffirmed
Blog April 11, 2016
Claims Directed to Detection of Gene Variants Patent-Ineligible, Notwithstanding Mental Activity Requirement
Blog July 27, 2015
Judicial Review Available for Decision that a Patent Qualified for CBM Review; § 101 Review Appropriate in CBM Review
Blog July 8, 2015
Software Claim Addressing Concepts Long Known in Other Fields and Lacking Other Inventive Concept Is Not Patent Eligible
Blog May 19, 2023
Legal Alert: Amgen v. Sanofi
Blog May 16, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: April 2023
Blog May 15, 2023
Legal Alert: Minimizing Patent TRO and PI Risk in Europe
Blog May 12, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: April 2023
Blog April 18, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: March 2023
Blog April 10, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: March 2023
Blog February 10, 2023
President Biden Signs "Protecting American Intellectual Property Act of 2022" Into Law
Blog February 7, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: January 2023
Article January 4, 2023
Attorneys Daniel Tishman and Joshua Rosefelt Author "ITC Year in Review" Article in IPWatchdog
Blog January 4, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: December 2022