Can "Plain and Ordinary Meaning" Still Be Invoked In Claim Construction?

April 2018
JaeWon Lee, an associate in Stradling's Intellectual Property practice group co-authored an article, “Can ‘Plain and Ordinary Meaning’ Still Be Invoked In Claim Construction?” for New Matter magazine, the IP publication for the Cal State bar. In 2016, the Federal Circuit issued a decision that suggested the court might have eliminated entirely the practice of deciding that “no constriction is necessary” because a claim term has a “plain and ordinary meaning”. The decision caused confusion among district courts and patent litigants on how to construe terms that would previously have been assigned a “plain and ordinary meaning” or be considered to not require a construction. It also led to the question of whether or not a district court can send the issue of infringement to a jury if a term has been assigned its “plain and ordinary meaning”. The article reviews recent Federal Circuit and district court decisions and provides practical tips for patent litigants facing a claim construction dispute. Read the full article below.
Please enable JavaScript, then refresh this page. JavaScript is required on this site.