Construction That Eliminates Entire Scope of Dependent Claims Should Be Avoided

Knobbe Martens
Contact

Knobbe Martens

LITTELFUSE, INC. v. MERSEN USA EP CORP.

Before Prost, Bryson, and Stoll.  Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Summary: The Federal Circuit vacated a claim construction that violated the doctrine of claim differentiation by eliminating the scope of several dependent claims.

Littelfuse sued Mersen for patent infringement.  At Mersen’s behest, the district court construed two independent claims to require a multi-piece apparatus.  Littlefuse stipulated to noninfringement under this claim construction and appealed. 

The Federal Circuit held that the district court’s multi-piece construction of the independent claims was erroneous because four dependent claims required a single-piece apparatus.  Under the district court’s construction, these dependent claims were improperly rendered meaningless because they were left with no scope.  Thus, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s claim construction and judgment of noninfringement.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Knobbe Martens | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Knobbe Martens
Contact
more
less

Knobbe Martens on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide