THE USE OF EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Did Phillips Remove Extrinsic Evidence
from the Analysis?
Bruce C. Haas
New York, NY
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Use of Extrinsic Evidence Before Phillips
• Dictionaries
Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d. 1243, 1251 (Fed.
Cir. 1998); Rexnord Corp v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1334 (Fed.
Cir. 2001)
• Expert Evidence
Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298
(Fed. Cir. 1998)
• Treatises and Textbooks
Glaxo Wellcome Inc. v. Andrx Pharms., Inc., 344 F.3d 1226, 1229 (Fed.
Cir. 2003)
• Inventor Testimony
Kolmes v. World Elastic Corp., 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 9407, 11 (Fed. Cir.
May 6, 1998)
2
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Intrinsic Evidence
• Claim language
• Specification
• File history
Phillips has made it clear that claim terms should be construed based
upon intrinsic evidence whenever possible.
3
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
• To properly construe a claim term, a Court must first look to the text of
the patent claim:
– “It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent
define the invention . . .’” Phillips v. AWH Corporation, 415 F.3d.
1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
– A court must look to the words of the claims themselves . . . to
define the scope of a patented invention. Markman v. Westview
Instruments, Inc. 52 F.3d 967, 979-81 (Fed. Cir 1995) (en banc).
– When the meaning of a disputed term is clear from the text of the
claim, that meaning should control absent a clear and unambiguous
disclaimer. See Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 2006 U.S.
App. Lexis 19799 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2006).
4
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
– “Claim construction must begin with the words of the claim
themselves.” Id. Therefore, a court “must look at the ordinary
meaning of the words in the context of the written description and
the prosecution history.” Phillips at 1312 (citing Medrad, Inc. v. MRI
Devices Corp., 401 F.3d 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
– “The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the
meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in
the art in question at the time of the invention” (effective filing
date). Phillips at 1313 (citing Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water
Filtration System, Inc., 381 F.3d. 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
5
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
– How does the court determine a particular term’s meaning to a person of
ordinary skill?
 Learned Treatises
 Technical Dictionaries
 Expert Testimony
– Often the meaning of claim term is clear to a lay judge—if so, that
meaning should be used. See Phillips at 1314.
– If the meaning is not quite so clear—what does a court look to?
 The Specification
 The File Wrapper
 Dictionaries
6
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
• The patent specification is the next best source after the claim itself:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Specification may define the term.
Specification may provide examples.
Specification may reveal prior art.
The Background of the Invention may provide helpful
information.
7
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
• The file wrapper is less reliable than the claim language and the
specification:
1) The file wrapper may define the term.
2) The file wrapper may reveal a disclaimer.
3) The file wrapper may reveal how the examiner or inventor
understood the term.
8
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
• Phillips emphasized the importance of intrinsic evidence, but also authorized
district courts to rely on extrinsic evidence. Extrinsic evidence is, however,
less significant than the intrinsic record. Phillips at 1317.
• The Federal Circuit still views extrinsic evidence as being less reliable than
the patent, and its prosecution history, in determining how to construe
claim terms. Phillips at 1317 (citing C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388
F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
• Undue reliance on extrinsic evidence poses the risk that it will be used to
change the meaning of claims in derogation of the indisputable public
records and undermine the public notice function of patents.
9
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
• A clear and unambiguous disclaimer during patent prosecution should
control.
– Such a disclaimer provides direction to the court in construing
claim terms, as the term should not be defined inconsistently with
the disclaimer.
• Disclaimer case law:
– “The prosecution history (or file wrapper) limits the interpretation
of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that may have been
disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to obtain
claim allowance.”
 Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452, (Fed.
Cir. 1985)
10
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
– Representations made during prosecution must be unambiguous
and contain clear disavowals.
 See Aquatex Industries Inc. v. Techniche Solutions, 419 F.3d
1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
– “[C]laim terms take on their ordinary and accustomed meanings
unless the patentee demonstrated an intent to deviate from the
ordinary and accustomed meaning . . . by redefining the term or by
characterizing the invention in the intrinsic record using words or
expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing a clear
disavowal of claim scope.”
 Teleflex Inc. v. Fisoca North America Corp., 299 F.3d 1313,
1327 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
11
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since Phillips That
Rely on Extrinsic Evidence
• Dictionaries
– The Federal Circuit in the en banc Phillips decision states that in
some circumstances, general purpose dictionaries may still be
helpful.
• Cases decided after Phillips where dictionaries were considered in
construing claim terms:
– Paymaster Techs., Inc. v. United States, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 11325,
14-15 (Fed. Cir. May 4, 2006) (Determining that a dictionary
definition “strengthens [the] distinction between ‘to’ and ‘through’,”
the Court upheld the Trial Court’s construction.)
12
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since Phillips That
Rely on Extrinsic Evidence – cont’d
• Dictionaries – cont’d
– Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 442 F.3d 1322, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (The appellate court disagreed with the trial court’s
definition of “gap” derived from Webster's II New Riverside University
Dictionary. Yet the appellate court relied on a dictionary definition of
“annular” formulated in Int'l Rectifier Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 361 F.3d
1363, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2004), which cited Webster's Third New
International Dictionary 88 (1966).)
13
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since Phillips That
Rely on Extrinsic Evidence – cont’d
• Dictionaries – cont’d
– Terlep v. Brinkmann Corp., 418 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(Concluding that the district court correctly defined the term “clear”,
the court used a dictionary definition of "clear" as "giving free passage to
light or to the sight: easily seen through: not cloudy, turbid, or opaque,"
to confirm what was in the written description and prosecution history.)
– Old Town Canoe Co. v. Confluence Holdings Corp., 448 F.3d 1309, 1316
(Fed. Cir. 2006) (The court determined that the use of a dictionary
definition by the district court to define “coalesce” and “complete” was
not improper.)
14
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since Phillips That
Rely on Extrinsic Evidence – cont’d
• Dictionaries – cont’d
– Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem Corp., 441 F.3d 991 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(“Because dictionaries, and especially technical dictionaries, endeavor
to collect the accepted meanings of terms used in various fields of
science and technology, those resources have been recognized as
among the many tools that can assist the court in determining the
meaning of particular terminology to that of skill in the art of the
invention.”)
15
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since Phillips That
Rely on Extrinsic Evidence – cont’d
• Learned Treatises/Textbooks
– The Federal Circuit in the en banc Phillips decision states that a court can
look to “those sources available to the public that show what a person of
skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean.”
• Cases decided after Phillips where learned treatises/textbooks were considered in
construing claim terms:
– Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharms.USA, Inc., 429 F.3d 1364, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(The court agreed with the district court’s determination that “one of skill
in the art would understand ‘saccharides’ to encompass more than sugars,”
and would include “polysaccharides”. Extrinsic evidence in the form of
technical dictionaries, treatises, and expert testimony were used to support
this conclusion drawn from the '450 patent.)
16
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since Phillips That
Rely on Extrinsic Evidence – cont’d
• Learned Treatises/Textbooks – cont’d
– AquaTex Indus. v. Techniche Solutions, 419 F.3d 1374, 1381-82 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (“Consistent interpretations in the industry publications” confirm
“one of ordinary skill in the textile manufacturing industry would
understand that commercial ‘fiberfill batting material’ is made of synthetic
or polyester fibers.”)
– Nystrom v. Trex Co., 424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“In discerning the
meaning of claim terms, resort to dictionaries and treatises also may be
helpful.”)
17
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since Phillips That
Rely on Extrinsic Evidence – cont’d
• Expert Testimony
– The Federal Circuit in the en banc Phillips decision states that expert
testimony can still be useful to a court interpreting patent claims for a
variety of purposes including:
 Understanding how the invention works
 Establishing how a particular term has a specific meaning in the
pertinent technical field
– In contrast, Phillips warns that expert testimony that is clearly at odds
with the claim construction mandated by the claims themselves should
be discounted.
18
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since Phillips That
Rely on Extrinsic Evidence – cont’d
• Expert Testimony – cont’d
– Also, expert testimony is usually generated at the time of and for the
purpose of litigation, “and thus can suffer from bias that is not present
in intrinsic evidence.” Phillips at 1318.
• Cases decided after Phillips where expert testimony was considered in
construing claim terms:
– Conoco, Inc. v. Energy and Envtl. Int’l, LC, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 21036
(Fed. Cir. Aug. 17, 2006) (The court considered expert testimony in
concluding that the ordinary meaning of "stable nonagglomerating
suspension," defined by the district court as “not agglomerating at the
time that the [substance] is introduced into the pipeline,” was not in
error.)
19
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since Phillips That
Rely on Extrinsic Evidence – cont’d
• Expert Testimony – cont’d
– Serio – U.S. Indus v. Plastic Recovery Techs. Corp., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS
20474 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2006) (Since it was weighed against intrinsic
evidence, the district court correctly used expert testimony “to provide
background on the technology at issue, to explain how an invention
works, to ensure that the court's understanding of the technical aspects
of the patent is consistent with that of a person of skill in the art, or to
establish that a particular term in the patent or the prior art has a
particular meaning in the pertinent field.” Citing Phillips, at 1318.)
20
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since Phillips That
Rely on Extrinsic Evidence – cont’d
• Expert Testimony – cont’d
– Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(Expert testimony confirmed, “that the relaying step is not limited to
pneumatically operated valves.” As a result, the district court's
interpretation of the relaying step was considered “unduly narrow”.)
– Global Maintech Corp. v. I/O Concepts, Inc., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 11017,
11-12 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2006) (Fed Cir found the district court made
“no error” in supporting its claim construction with expert testimony,
which “expressly defined a ‘heterogenous computer system’ as one that
simultaneously controls multiple computers that use different operating
systems.”)
21
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since Phillips That
Rely on Extrinsic Evidence – cont’d
• Expert Testimony – cont’d
– Snypro II Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. T-Mobile USA Inc., 450 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“This court has recognized that extrinsic evidence and expert
testimony can help to educate the court concerning the invention and
the knowledge of persons of skill in the field of the invention.”)
22
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Federal Circuit Decisions Since Phillips That
Rely on Extrinsic Evidence – cont’d
• Inventor Testimony
– The Federal Court in the en banc Phillips decision states that inventor
testimony can still be useful to a court interpreting patent claims.
– Warner-Lambert Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 418 F.3d 1326, 1347-48
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (Evaluating the district court’s use of inventor
testimony, the appellate court found there was no error in
concluding that “the Warner-Lambert inventors were concerned only
with carbonate ions, had no intention of claiming bicarbonates, and
consequently had no intent to deceive the PTO in not disclosing
Vasotec[R].”)
23
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
Practical Approaches
1) Claim term meaning must be consistent with scope of invention.
2) Ordinary and customary meaning usually prevails.
3) Experts can help explain how a person of ordinary skill understands a
disputed term.
4) Dictionaries can help a court understand how a person of ordinary
skill understands a disputed term.
5) Textbooks, treatises and technical dictionaries can help a court
understand how a person of ordinary skill understands a disputed
term.
6) Inventor testimony can help explain how a person of ordinary skill
understands a disputed term.
24
www.fitzpatrickcella.com
• Has Phillips clarified how courts should construe claims?
• Is extrinsic evidence still useful in construing disputed terms?
25
www.fitzpatrickcella.com