Also known as: patent claim · claims · claims of the patent
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The numbered statements in a patent that set forth the precise boundaries of the invention for which legal protection is claimed. They must be definite enough to inform persons of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the exclusive right.
Phoenix Technologies contracts to sell a research facility to Pioneer Energy. Before closing, Pioneer learns that Phoenix has pending patent claims covering a process used at the site that remain unresolved and could cloud ownership. Pioneer refuses to close because the title is not free from reasonable doubt. The seller cannot cure the defect by closing, so Pioneer may rescind and recover its deposit.
Pulse Media files a complaint alleging infringement of its software patent. Its attorney signs the pleading without first confirming that the asserted claims read on the accused product or that the legal theory is supported by existing precedent. The defendant moves for sanctions. The court finds the claims were not warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument for extension and imposes Rule 11 sanctions.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A law firm represents two clients who each hold separate patents against the same defendant. The firm negotiates a single payment that resolves both sets of patent claims without disclosing the total amount or each client's share. Neither client gives informed written consent. The settlement violates the aggregate-settlement rule and is subject to rescission.
A Delaware corporation is sued in California for infringing a patent on a device sold nationwide. The plaintiff is a California resident injured by the device in California. A second plaintiff, a New York resident injured only in New York, joins the same suit. The court may exercise specific jurisdiction over the first plaintiff's patent claim but not the second plaintiff's claim, which lacks any California connection.
A federal district court has original jurisdiction over a patent-infringement claim between diverse parties. The defendant asserts state-law counterclaims for breach of a related licensing agreement that arise from the same facts. The court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims because they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III.
A lender takes a security interest in a debtor's inventory of patented medical devices. The devices are movable when the interest attaches. The devices qualify as goods under the UCC, so the lender's interest is perfected by filing a financing statement rather than by treating the devices as general intangibles.
The judge interprets the meaning of patent claims as a question of law. This allocation follows from the historical treatment of written instruments and the need for uniform construction across cases.
A claim is definite when persons of ordinary skill in the art can understand its scope with reasonable certainty after reading the specification. Words of degree are permitted if the specification and prosecution history supply an objective standard.
Functional language is allowed when tied to corresponding structure in the specification under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Purely functional claims that do not recite structure are invalid for indefiniteness.
…view of our ruling as to Roe's standing in her case, the issue of the Does' standing in their case has little significance. The claims they assert are essentially the same as those of Roe, and they attack the same statutes. Nevertheless, we briefly note the Does' posture. Their pleadings present them as a childless…