Disclaimer Results in Reversal of $56 Million Dollar Damage Award
As previously discussed, the CAFC has agreed to reconsider Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon, Inc. (here) en banc.
The Court will reconsider whether or not intervening rights are created
for a claim that is not literally amended in a post grant proceeding by
a change in verbiage, but instead, by operation of prosecution
disclaimer on the part of the Patentee. (earlier post here)
Interestingly, last week the Court considered a somewhat similar
circumstance of claims that were confirmed in patent reexamination
without amendment in Krippelz v. Ford Motor Company (here). In Krippelz,
the Court considered an automotive mirror that emitted a "conical beam
of light." In patent reexamination the Patentee made statements
pertaining to the shape of a light beam and it's relation to reflecting
elements, thus disclaiming arrangements that did not include these
critical features. Based on these statements, the Court found that the
Patentee disclaimed an interpretation of this language that could have
impacted the Court's claim construction, and as a result found the
The court's application of prosecution disclaimer in Krippelz is straightforward, but an interesting contrast to the arguably innapropriate application of disclaimer in Marine Polymer.
As a reminder amicus briefing in Marine will be completed February 10th.
View more from Patents Post-Grant.
Lexis.com subscribers can explore/search Patent Law resources on Lexis.com or access any of these Mathew Bender Patent Law publications:
Non-subscribers can purchase Patent Law
treatises/resources and Mathew Bender publications from the LexisNexis Bookstore
For more information about LexisNexis products and
solutions connect with us through our corporate