Federal Circuit: Claim Construction Should be Avoided Unless Associated with a Recognized Meaningful Case Outcome
This post has been viewed 3,534 times.
Superior Industries v. Masaba (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Superior Indus. is an interesting short non-precedential opinion from the Federal Circuit. Judge Clevenger wrote the opinion whose holding is simply a remand for clarification. However, the case raises important constitutional questions of justiciability and advisory opinions.
At the lower court, the parties argued over construction of the terms “channel beam,” “C-shaped channel beam,” and “elongate opening.” After district court Judge Donovan Frank construed those terms, the patentee (Superior) admitted that it could not prove infringement. Judge Frank then awarded summary judgment of non-infringement without substantive opinion other than noting Superior’s admission of liability.
On appeal, Superior challenged the claim construction of those disputed terms, but the Federal Circuit has refused to hear the case because it the record was unclear as to whether a modified claim construction would change the outcome.
Read original articleIt is impossible for us to determine from this opinion which of the thirteen contested claim constructions would “actually affect” the infringement analysis. This poses a risk that our review of at least some of the constructions would amount to an advisory opinion.
Tags:
