- Patent Case Management: Professor Peter Menell (Berkeley) has been working with several top patent litigators to develop a “comprehensive patent case management guide” for federal judges. The almost-final draft is available online. The manuscript will very likely become a desk reference for district court judges and their clerks once it is published by the Federal Judicial Center in the next couple of months. In some ways, the 500+ page manuscript is a patent doctrine encyclopedia as well as a judicial form book.
- [UPDATE] Secretary of Commerce: In a prior post, I wrote about the potential John Thompson, CEO of Symantec may be appointed as the next Secretary of Commerce. As noted in the comments, I failed to mention the fact that Symantec is a leading member of the “Coalition for Patent Fairness.” The Coalition is a lobbying group pushing for reduced patent damages awards, reduced ability to forum shop, and an invigorated system for post-grant challenges to asserted patents. [LINK] Previously, the Coalition also supported eBay and reduced willfulness findings. Each of these changes reduce the potential power individual patents.
- Query: Assume you have a popular product covered by a pending patent. Is there a way to mark the patent pending good in a way so that an infringer will be considered on notice of the patent as soon as the patent issues (so that you can collect past damages).
…at least he admitted it was a mistake…
Pay no attention to those annoying little cracks in the hull, instead, just look at the “big picture!” This ship we call the Titanic is awesome and will hopefully lead to better Arctic passages.
Incidentally, I don’t typically look to footnotes for the Big Picture, I look to footnotes for accurate and reliably correct reference information.
Someone made a mistake and instead of saying “claims read on X” they said “X reads on claims.”
I’m pretty sure it will be fixed in the “final” version.
The main point is that Prof. Menell and co. have done an awesome job putting together a manual that will hopefully lead to better decisions.
A typo in a freaking footnote should not distract you from the big picture. Unless, of course, you are AllSeeingEye.
Maybe you should patent the flippant use of “patent pending” so you can exclude others from doing it.
One man’s satire is another’s actual filing.
Wouldn’t discretion be better? There are more clever ways of making a point.
“I recommend caution in the seemingly flippant use of ‘Patent pending.’ I would expect that posters on this site are familiar with the rules of stating ‘Patent pending’.”
I would expect that as well. I would also expect posters on this site to know that 35 USC 292 doesn’t prohibit “flippant” use of “patent pending,” but only use in connection with an article for the purpose of deceiving the public. I don’t think the use of the term in a satirical blog post qualifies.
broje,
I recommend caution in the seemingly flippant use of “Patent pending.”
I would expect that posters on this site are familiar with the rules of stating “Patent pending”.
Now that digital cable TV is the only game in town, the efforts to target individuals with “personalized” information via their TV sets will begin in earnest. This patent notification business is the least of a billion (obvious) content variations.
Non Sequitur said, “Because 35 USC 154(d) requires “actual notice,” you could include a copy of the published application with every sale of the covered product. This wouldn’t get potential infringers that don’t actually buy your product, but it would do more for you than simply placing “patent pending” on the covered product.”
Insert faceplant here. We will now start seeing click through agreements on software activation and website registrations that present us with all the business entities’ published patent applications, with automatic updates of republications no less! Patent pending.
“Does that leave you open for a DJ in the home court of the potential infringer?”
Not until the patent issues, at least. 123 is right – there is authority that says you must not only draw the target’s attention to the published application, but also identify the activity that is covered by the pending claims. You should also request that the target stop the identified activity. These requirements are basically the same as for giving notice under an issued patent so as to trigger willfulness liability for further infringement.
Marking your products “patent pending” is a nice marketing tool, and might serve to cause a competitor to think twice about copying it. But it generally doesn’t do a thing for you regarding 154(d).
Dear 123,
Does that leave you open for a DJ in the home court of the potential infringer?
Although the statute says you only have to provide actual notice of the published patent application – which makes it seem as though you only need to provide a copy of the published application to potential infringers – I believe (but have no authority ready to cite) that actual notice further requires some assertion of possible infringement so that the issue is actively brought to the infringer’s attention. I usually accomplish this by sending a copy of the application along with a cover letter identifying the potentially infringing product. Again, I can’t recall any authority for that; but I generally prefer to cover all of my bases rather than run the risk of doing too little and not satisfying the statutory requirements.
Mooney: No, the posting of documents on PAIR isn’t “publication” within the meaning of the statute. You can argue that it is, but I think you’re asking for trouble by not spending the $300 or so to formally republish.
Because 35 USC 154(d) requires “actual notice,” you could include a copy of the published application with every sale of the covered product. This wouldn’t get potential infringers that don’t actually buy your product, but it would do more for you than simply placing “patent pending” on the covered product.
We are ready to Lead Again!
Hear!, Hear!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Jaoi™.
You are AOK by me — take the day off.
Enjoy, but everything in moderation,
Just like your Dad taught you.
Good Morning Leo et al.,
You got that right — each in accord with his/her agenda. Freedom to believe what one wants to believe; in reality, reality is of no present moment.
After all, what is reality? We each have a Right to our own.
That’s an integral notion from our Founding Fathers as evidenced by their blessing We the People with The United States Constitution.
On the Great Day, Be Thankful, be ever so thankful…
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Great comment Mr Bloom. Thanks for the first laugh of the day. As to the point about Notice of pending issue, sometimes I think Dennis is busy comparing patent law provisions inside the USA with those outside, like Article 67 of the EPC, which gives patent owners the chance to collect compensation in respect of acts of infringement, backdated to the WO or EP-A publication 18 months after the earliest declared priority date. In force since 1978. No fuss, no bother. Mind you, Art.67EPC does put a premium on thoughtful drafting, and the “written description” requirement of the patent law. Wonder why Dennis is interested.
“Unless, of course, you are trying to destroy the meaning of language, which is what liberal deconstructionists tend to try to do.”
Hey, leave us liberal deconstructionists out of this. Deconstructionists don’t “do” anything to language – as Derrida said, “Deconstruction is not a method, and cannot be transformed into one.” We simply point out that it’s darned difficult to find some ultimate and universal meaning in ordinary language. I think there is plenty of evidence on this board that people tend to find in language precisely what they are looking for.
Are there rules that permit an applicant to “re” publish an application (apart from filing a new application)?
Posted by: confused SCOTUS | Jan 20, 2009 at 04:44 AM
Yes. See 37 CFR 1.221(a). Of course, the proviso is that the re-publication takes a minimum of 10 weeks.
Section 287(a) requires a number. Bottom line is you can’t give notice — actual or constructive — of a patent that doesn’t exist. Even if you did mark with “patent pending,” it wouldn’t satisfy the statute.
Best way to preserve damages under section 287(a) is:
(1) Before patent issues, mark product as covered by “patent pending.” This is generally not false marking under 292. Warns competition patent may issue. Gives you about as much benefit as you can get for a pending application, which does not give any right to damages. Probably more benefit than is warranted, given uncertainty whether patent will issue.
(2) Immediately, upon issuance of patent, begin marking appropriately under 287(a). This means (a) number of the patent (b) either affixed to article itself or, if nature of article does not permit such marking, in packaging, splash screen or product literature as the case may be. Because notice is constructive, not actual, it doesn’t matter that third parties don’t actually see the mark immediately upon start of marking. All that matters is that you mark with the number in an appropriate way, immediately upon issuance. Document it, if you can.
123: “So every time you amend the claims, you should republish the application and re-notice the infringer (assuming the product still falls within the claims as amended).”
MM: “Is it enough that the amended claims are typically published on PAIR the moment after they are e-filed?”
Are there rules that permit an applicant to “re” publish an application (apart from filing a new application)? If PAIR is sufficient to constitute “re” publish, then it seems 154(d) would still require the applicant provide notice of such publication, i.e. “re” notice.
“breadcrumbs = Mooney in desperation (?)”
I doubt it, we’re all just tired of seeing you post a flame after each and everything he says, no matter how harmless, correct, full of merit, or meritless what he said was. Seriously, D already asked you to stop with the flaming a long time ago.
Nice try.
breadcrumbs = Mooney in desperation (?)
“So every time you amend the claims, you should republish the application and re-notice the infringer (assuming the product still falls within the claims as amended).”
Is it enough that the amended claims are typically published on PAIR the moment after they are e-filed?
Perhaps the AllSeeingEye does not see that Mooney gets a rise whenever the AllSeeingEye goes ballistic and resorts to playground justice.
Perhaps the AllSeeingEye should attack with truly witty banter or devastating facts or simply disengage.
The current namecalling and dull-witted responses are almost (not quite, but almost) as stale as limited Mooney glibness.
Marking is constructive notice. 154(d) requires actual notice, which means a letter to the infringer. Furthermore, the actual notice must be of “the” published patent application, and the right to damages only arises if the claims of “the” published application are substantially identical to the claims of the issued patent. So every time you amend the claims, you should republish the application and re-notice the infringer (assuming the product still falls within the claims as amended).
“and we know this how?”
We know this by the perennially sorry state of patent law and the lack of quality of analysis from sideline commentators like you.
“Usage” can be distinguished from a “term of art.” Usage is used where there can be more than one use of a term. As I said, a “term of art” by definition, should be unwaveringly and solidly established and not susceptible to different “usages.”
Unless, of course, you are trying to destroy the meaning of language, which is what liberal deconstructionists tend to try to do.
“Who is confused this usage? I’m not confused by it…”
What with all the white wine and glory holes, you are waaaay more confused than you realize Mooney…
TJ, I think the question Dennis posed (at least the way I read it) is whether there is any way to mark prior to the issuance of a patent such that the mark would provide constructive notice immediately upon issuance of the patent. Obviously a new mark with the patent number is best, but if you didn’t or couldn’t mark products with the patent number immediately after issuance of the patent, is there any kind of pre-issuance mark that would do the trick?
In my view, the answer is probably not. However, the case cited in my earlier post (Loops, LLC v. Americare Products, Inc., 08-cv-1064 (D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2008)) suggests, perhaps, that the answer is not so cut-and-dry. The defendants in that case moved to dismiss plaintiff’s damages claim from the date of issuance to the date defendants received actual notice. Plaintiff argued its pre-issuance patent pending notice provided sufficient constructive notice once the patent issued. The court denied the motion to dismiss, stating the question of constructive marking was an issue for the jury. In other words, the court seemed to think a jury could find that a pre-issuance mark was sufficient to provide post-issuance constructive notice.
It would be a mistake to read too much into a single district court decision, and clearly marking products with the patent number as soon as possible is the best course of action. But if you had no other choice, I suppose it could be argued that a very, very, detailed pre-issuance mark provides the same, or very close to the same, information as a post-issuance mark that contains the patent number and therefore satisfies the requirements of Section 287. The Loops case seems to suggest this is a possibility and that the ultimate determination rests with the jury.
“As I said, using “read on” for anything but describing what the claims do, simply confuses.”
Who is confused this usage? I’m not confused by it. The Federal Circuit isn’t confused by it. The BPAI is not confused by it.
So who is confused? “Some people”? And we know this how? Because you say so?
“there is only one way to express a thought”
That’s fine for casual talk and creative writing (and angry little bloggers).
But the whole purpose of a “term of art” is to convey one and only one meaning that is universally accepted in the profession.
I wouldn’t expect an angry little m0r0n like Mooney to “get” that any more than I would expect him to understand the subtle nuance of why only claims can “read on” anything. Even though Mooney has assured us before that he is “all about nuances.”
LOL
“No surprise. It’s a common trait of attorneys and wanna-be attorneys to declare that there is only one correct way to express a thought. Many uncreative people become attorneys merely because their parents would be disappointed if they became anything other than a doctor or lawyer. Such people tend to continue to look to authority figures for guidance throughout their lives.”
Mooney must be speaking from experience here.
Its kind of like eating at MacDonalds, using “comprised of,” or practicing “poor pruning.” Many smart people do it – it doesn’t make it right.
The fact is, anyone can say that something “reads on the claims;” its just that it has little meaning and certainly does not carry the term of art meaning that Professor Menell purported to clarify in his footnote.
As I said, using “read on” for anything but describing what the claims do, simply confuses. Using the term improperly blurs the line between using the claims as a roseline reference to read out onto the art or the accused device for determinations of validity or infringement.
If you think about it, the mere idea of reading a reference onto a claim, by necessity, smacks of hindsight and is backward – just like Mooney.
Unfortunately the above post does not contain any references to crack pipe, dog poop, white wine, or toilets, therefore I don’t expect a reasoned response from Mooney.
Dennis, your question seems rather confusing. To preserve past damages from a 287 challenge, all you need to do is mark properly from the issuance of the patent (granted, this might be complicated vis-a-vis reworking your manufacturing facilities to get the timing just right). And if you are talking about provisional rights, you need actual notice of the publication, so I don’t think any amount of marking is sufficient.
“Assume you have a popular product covered by a pending patent. Is there a way to mark the patent pending good in a way so that an infringer will be considered on notice of the patent as soon as the patent issues (so that you can collect past damages).”
Dennis: are you talking about treble damages, just routine damages, or reasonably royalty damages based on a printed application publication?
‘preview’ and follow-up discussion of this manuscript is an excellent idea, but how about taking it one step further and having it go through a more formal ‘community review’ period? it would be great if a larger pool of practioners had a chance to chime in and their input considered…
There’s ne big advantage of John Thompson as USPTO Director.
Imagine him going to Congress and stating he could reduce the backlog and pendency by XX% if only you will make it perfectly clear that business methods and software are not patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 instead of waiting for the courts to do it (mental) step by step.
And, the PTO can use some of that time for post-grant challanges outside of the courts.
Inside the PTO he would not have to take positions on damages or forum shopping.
Malcolm,
Now you have really jumped the shark.
“Is there a way to mark the patent pending good in a way so that an infringer will be considered on notice of the patent as soon as the patent issues?”
When I looked into this years ago, marking is legally ineffective without a patent number. Pat pending, etc. are meaningless.
To get damages between publication and grant the patentee must prove, among other things, actual notice.
If the leadtime for proper marking is so long or the potential damages so great, then I suggest hiring a legion of people armed with Sharpie’s to mark all the products coming off the production line or in the distribution channels as soon as the patent issues. In the present economy, it might be cheaper than Kevin’s wireless display.
Beware, selling a mixture of marked and unmarked products is almost worse than only selling unmarked products.
“In response to the query, I think you need to go back to the provisional rights statute 35 USC 154(d), which calls for ‘actual notice of the published application’. This term isn’t defined, but there is a body of law dealing with the same term in the context of the patent marking statute 35 USC 287. Since you’re talking about marking here, too, I think that law would apply.”
Although there is case law suggesting that the standards for sufficient “actual” notice under these two statutes are similar, these statutes are otherwise completely distinct. Given my understanding of D’s question, it has nothing to do with 154(d), and everything to do with 287.
As I read it, Section 287 is quite specific – a product covered by a patent must be marked with the patent number if the patentee wishes to claim damages for infringement occuring prior to actual notice of the infringement. This is separate and distinct from a patent owner’s potential right to reach back before issuance of the patent under 154(d).
Since the statute explicitly requires the patent number, I can’t see that a single (conventional) label is possible that would be effective before and after issuance.
However, I don’t believe there is any problem with pre-issuance product floating around with a “patent pending” label, or without any label at all. The statute only requires the marking of “patented” articles that are made, offered for sale, or sold be marked. The article is obviously not patented until after issuance. Thus, if the patentee immediately begins marking new products upon issuance, then an infringer is liable from issuance forward.
That raises the question of how to deal with material in the distribution pipeline, I suppose – is there case law expanding on what “failure so to mark” means in this context.?
“In a prior post, I wrote about the potential John Thompson, CEO of Symantec may be appointed as the next Secretary of Commerce.”
Sounds like an excellent choice based on what I’ve heard thus far.
Here’s no less an authority than pds discussing prior art that “reads on the claims”:
link to patentlyo.com
Here’s the Federal Circuit (Judge Prost) discussing prior art that “reads on the claims” (page 7)
link to ll.georgetown.edu
And here’s the BPAI (page 3):
link to fr.com
No surprise. It’s a common trait of attorneys and wanna-be attorneys to declare that there is only one correct way to express a thought. Many uncreative people become attorneys merely because their parents would be disappointed if they became anything other than a doctor or lawyer. Such people tend to continue to look to authority figures for guidance throughout their lives.
In response to the query, I think you need to go back to the provisional rights statute 35 USC 154(d), which calls for “actual notice of the published application”. This term isn’t defined, but there is a body of law dealing with the same term in the context of the patent marking statute 35 USC 287. Since you’re talking about marking here, too, I think that law would apply.
I’ve seen marking referred to as “constructive notice”, although the statute doesn’t use that term. “Actual notice” is an alternative to marking the patent number on the product.
So, you can mark (constructive notice) or, if you don’t mark, you have to give “actual notice” – and if the two were the same, why make the distinction?
Based on this, I don’t think merely putting an application number on a product would be “actual notice”. It would be constructive notice, but from what I can see, “actual notice”, as in the marking statute, requires that the accused get a specific communication from the Patentee (or, in this case by extension, Applicant) of what the application is, and which of their products might be infringing it.
Regarding the question about marking before a patent issues:
It seems unlikely that marking a product patent pending or even providing a reference to a specific application (published or unpublished) would satisfy the constructive notice requirement. The Federal Circuit has stated: “A ‘patent pending’ notice gives one no knowledge whatsoever. It is not even a guarantee that an application has been filed. Filing an application is no guarantee any patent will issue and a very substantial percentage of applications never result in patents. What the scope of claims in patents that do issue will be is something totally unforeseeable.” State Industries, Inc. v. A.O. Smith Corp., 751 F.2d 1226, 1235 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The above statement was made in the context of a willfulness determination, but would seem to apply equally in the marking context.
That said, at least one court has refused to dismiss damages claims on the basis that a “patent pending” mark is insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the constructive notice requirement. See Loops, LLC v. Americare Products, Inc., 08-cv-1064 (D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2008). The court said the issue of whether a particular mark satisfies the constructive notice requirement is a question of fact for the jury. Citing Halliburton Services v. Smith Intern. Inc., 317 F. Supp. 2d 719, 723 (E.D. Tex. 2004), the court also noted: “[I]n determining whether the patentee marked its products sufficiently to comply with constructive notice requirement, the focus is not on what infringer actually knew, but on whether patentee’s actions were sufficient, in the circumstances, to provide notice[.]”
So bottom line: It seems unlikely that marking a product patent pending would provide constructive notice, but since the question is one of fact for the jury, one could always try.
By the way, there is a related question that may apply in some cases, as to whether damages are available under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d).
JAOI. see what you mean from symantec’s own website info. not good.
link to symantec.com
Thanks for the UPDATE:
If John Thompson, CEO of Symantec, a leading member of the “Coalition for Patent Fairness,” is appointed as the next Secretary of Commerce, we will have a Chief Coalition Fox in the Patent Chicken House.
Trouble, oh we got trouble,
Right here in River City!
with a capital “T” that rhymes with “P”
And that stands for PATENT TROUBLE!
It would be an outrage, a desecration of great proportion!
____________________________________________
In response to the Query, I know that some companies mark their products “U.S. Patent Pending, Application Serial Number ##/###,###” in an attempt to put infringers on legal (inquiry) notice. Some companies even mark their products “U.S. Patent Pending, Patent Application Publication Number ####/#######” after an associated patent application is published. Still other companies include filing-date information and/or last-name-of-lead-inventor information in their notice markings as well.
Note to the idots that posted this paper. The judges are not technical people with computer backgrounds. You need to make the download as EASY, EASY, EASY as possible. This system where you go to another screen and are NOT told you have to choose one of four buttons, what thought of this? A system and method of making something that should be easy as overly complicated as possible? Make the download EASY, EASY, EASY, or no one will ever see it or read it. And at 500+ pages, few will read it anyway. Bone Heads
n
On the Patent Case Management Judicial Guide, Dennis, is it a matter of regret that “The Committee has been unable to reach a consensus….where the court submits the underlying factual issues to the jury and reserves for itself the determination of obviousness.” (page 48). I suppose it is, at least to Judicial Advisory Board members Michel, Linn and Rader.
claims read on reference
“reading the references was not one of the things of importance.”
I wouldn’t expect you to grasp the nuance 6, so relax and go back to your Big Gulp.
Let me restate for those who missed it the first time (and to edit slightly)
– A reference, while susceptible of being read in a literal sense, is not the thing regarding which the “reading on” is of importance in the patent law term-of-art sense. In other words, the reference is read to determine whether the claims, which are the true thing of significance, “read on” the reference.
“A reference, while susceptible of being read, is not the thing regard[ing] which the reading is of importance, e.g. the claims at issue.”
I personally was unaware that reading the references was not one of the things of importance. I’ll be sure to let my boss know that I won’t be doing that anymore since it isn’t of any significant importance. Dmbas flamer on the interwebz said so.
“Now prior art compositions and methods also read on claims.”
The nature of prior art compositions and methods has not changed since the beginning of patent law (or time for that matter).
Neither has the nature of claims (or the frenzied machinations of bumblers for that matter).
Only claims “read on.”
Er, technically, accidents do NOT have a sense of time… and explosions don’t go BANG in space. Therefore, er, according to my calculations, Mooney you are wrong, again.
I can sense your bitterness Mooney, its OK. We’ll all just continue to watch your desperate daily flailing in the “Mooney tries to take on the patent world”-show and shake our heads in sympathy…
Tune in next time when WallCreepingFly teaches us that the phrase “an accident waiting to happen” is “wrong” because “accidents do not have a sense of time.”
To take it one step further Johnny, even in the case of a prior art reference, which technically can be “read,” the only thing of significance when assessing the validity of a claim, is the claim itself and how it “reads” on a device, which as you note cannot be “read.” A reference, while susceptible of being read, is not the thing regard which the reading is of importance, e.g. the claims at issue.
“Mr.” Mooney
LOL
Thank you Johnny. It looks like the poll is in, Mooney is dumb.
“Guess what? Time passed and you were left behind.”
Sorry Mooney, it was wrong yesterday (meaning January 18, 2009 and its wrong today.
You were an idi0t yesterday and your still an idi0t today. Nobody is confused that you might not be an idi0t.
Its fundamental. And asserting that a piece of prior art “reads on” a claim is why people like you don’t “get” patent law and have to spend all their time blogging.
Claims are made up of words. Words can be read, and therefore a claim can be “read on” something.
A thing or device can’t be read. So to say a device “reads on” a claim perhaps is not confusing, but it is dumb.
Mr. Mooney –
I believe a cross-licensing agreement is in order…
“This is incorrect. Only claims “read on.””
Guess what? Time passed and you were left behind. Now prior art compositions and methods also read on claims.
Nobody is confused by it. Some uptight people are troubled by it (e.g., you), but nobody is confused by it.
“It might not be cost-effective except in extraordinary circumstances, but one can imagine a wireless communications system that could be used to display a patent number and replace a serial number in very near real-time.”
I thought of the same thing immediately but because you came up with it first only you are entitled to exclusive rights to this awesome idea.
I have a non-obvious variation, however, which is that the buyer of the good is enticed to enter a registration code that is packaged with the goods. The code is entered into a kiosk (which includes a personal computer) along with the buyers’ email, home address, cell phone number and — most importantly — site of purchase. The enticement is in the form of entry into a lottery or some other prize. When the patent issues, notices are sent to all of the contacts simultaneously.
In another variation, all of this is carried out a POWERFUL COMPUTER BRAIN.
Footnote 1 in chapter 2 reads as follows:
“1 The phrase “reads on” is a term of art in patent law. An accused device, manufacture,
composition, or process “reads on” (and hence infringes) a patent claim if it embodies each of
the claim limitations. Similarly, a patent claim “reads on” a prior art reference (and hence is
invalid) if the prior art reference contains each of the claim limitations.”
This is incorrect. Only claims “read on.” The claims can read on a reference or an accused device, manufacture, composition, or process…
The notion that prior art or accused devices can “read on” anything is the source of much confusion and represents a classic blunder in applying the logical principles of patent law. Novice examiners, practitioners and individuals of every kind do it all the time.
However, it’s still a mistake.
Query: Assume you have a popular product covered by a pending patent. Is there a way to mark the patent pending good in a way so that an infringer will be considered on notice of the patent as soon as the patent issues (so that you can collect past damages).
Not that I know of
Oldest one
link to google.com
Patent marking patents and applications
link to google.com
It might not be cost-effective except in extraordinary circumstances, but one can imagine a wireless communications system that could be used to display a patent number and replace a serial number in very near real-time. Could be a good use for all of the old pagers that are now obsolete in terms of communications technologies.
Chapter 5 of the Patent Case Management Guide on “Claim Construction” looks like it is going to be very useful to just about anyone drafting or interpreting patent claims.
Comments are closed.