Did you know that your claim preamble is more likely to be limiting when you’re dealing with a method claim versus an apparatus claim? In Cochlear Bone Anchored v. Oticon Medical AB, Cochlear’s claim recited a hearing aid apparatus “for rehabilitation of unilateral hearing loss” in the preamble. Cochlear was challenged at inter partes review (IPR) where Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found the preamble term “for rehabilitation of unilateral hearing loss” did not limit the scope of the claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s ruling, expressly finding that the statement of intended use is not limiting because the preamble did not furnish additional structure that was recited in the body of the claims, and provided no antecedent basis for any of the limitations in the body of the claim.
Patent
- Enablement
- Fee Shifting
- Litigation
- CAFC Gives Google Second Shot at PTAB in Challenge of Communications Patents
- Policy Shift Against SEP Rights Poses Risks for U.S. Innovation and Undermines Mandate of the ITC
- Mossoff-Barnett Comment on EU Commission’s Call for SEP Evidence Spotlights Misconceptions About FRAND Obligations
- LG’s Recent Infringement Fight Against TCL Could Take Some Tips from DivX’s Approach
- A Tale of Two Googles: Patent System Champion or Crux of the Problem?
Recent Posts
- CAFC Gives Google Second Shot at PTAB in Challenge of Communications Patents
- Policy Shift Against SEP Rights Poses Risks for U.S. Innovation and Undermines Mandate of the ITC
- Mossoff-Barnett Comment on EU Commission’s Call for SEP Evidence Spotlights Misconceptions About FRAND Obligations
- LG’s Recent Infringement Fight Against TCL Could Take Some Tips from DivX’s Approach
- A Tale of Two Googles: Patent System Champion or Crux of the Problem?