In a move that serves as a refreshing reminder of the importance of terminology in legal proceedings, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently overruled a claim construction that was instituted during an inter partes review (IPR). The ruling was made under the grounds that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board had erred in interpreting the disputed limitation as pertaining exclusively to a single sample, rather than also involving the option of multiple samples. The case in question was ABS Global, Inc. v. Cytonome/ST, LLC, Case No. 22-1761 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 19, 2023) (Reyna, Taranto, Stark, JJ)
This ruling brings into focus the intricacies and nuances of patent law, especially when it comes to the interpretation of patent claims. In this particular case, a key issue was around the understanding of the word “a” in the patent claim – whether it referred exclusively to ‘one’, or could be expanded to mean ‘one or more’. This seemingly minor interpretation proved crucial in the said lawsuit and the decision will undoubtedly serve as a reference point in future cases.
Although the use of the indefinite article “a” is largely understood as pointing to a singular entity in everyday English language, its interpretation in a legal setting often differs given the context. The court’s decision reaffirms that the context and claim language in the patent applications and related legal proceedings can allow for “a” to mean “one or more”.
One of the biggest implications of this decision is likely to be felt by corporations and law firms dealing with patent cases, particularly those related to Scientific R&D and technology-related patents. Legal professionals need to stay keenly aware of this kind of linguistic nuances as they can potentially sway the direction of a case, particularly in the sphere of patent litigations.
For further reading and a more detailed explanation of the judge’s decision, you can visit the full case brief on JD Supra.