Interpreting A Patent Is Not So 'Plain And Ordinary' After All

Law360, New York (April 19, 2016, 11:09 AM EDT) -- Roshan P. Shrestha

Richard T. Ruzich Patent claims, like contracts, require interpretation by a court before they can be applied to the facts of a case, e.g., whether the claims read on the infringing device. Often, the parties propose the “plain and ordinary” meaning to the claim terms, or, in other words, common usage in the English language. Sounds fair and reasonable, but like most issues in patent law, things get blurred during the claim construction process. A recent appeals court decision and a district court order elucidate this issue.

In Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Spring Networks Inc.,...

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.


  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Beta
Ask a question!