Practices and Industries
Can "Plain and Ordinary Meaning" Still Be Invoked In Claim Construction?
, 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
, 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.
Back to Mobile Home
View Full Site
Back to Top
Copyright 2017 Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, P.C. - All Rights Reserved