![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
The mere fact that a structural term in the preamble is part of the patent claim does not mean that the preamble's statement of purpose or other description is also part of the claim.
Plaintiff, former licensee, sought a declaratory judgment that defendant patentees' patent for a scratch-off label was invalid. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the United States District Court for the Central District of California held the patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C.S. § 102(b) as anticipated. The holders appealed, arguing the court improperly failed to treat the "for permitting" language in the preamble as a claim limitation.
Was there infringement on the patent for a scratch-off label?
The district court judgment of invalidity and non-infringement was affirmed. It held that a side-by-side comparison of prior art and the patentees' patent showed the patentees' patent did not include any limitations that were not in a prior patent. Thus, the argument that the asserted prior art failed to disclose additional limitations present in the patentees' patent was rejected. There could be no infringement since the patent was invalid.