The field of patent law is a complex one, replete with jargon and linguistically creative descriptors crafted squarely within a legal context. One such example is the creation and usage of tailored terms in patent claims. The invention of phrases such as “a fluid delivery system” in place of the simpler, more common ‘hose’ or ‘pipe’ is a regular occurrence.
However, these made-up patent claim terms may lead to arguments suggesting an application of means-plus-function claim interpretation as defined under the Patent Act. Such perceptions can, at times, have significant legal implications and potential pitfalls. Fortunately, certain preventive measures may be employed to mitigate such issues or perceptions.
An effective practice includes the usage of structural language immediately subsequent to introducing a claim element, a strategy that can help avert such misunderstandings. This method assists in shaping a clear, concise perception of patent claims, making them less prone to contestation or undisclosed interpretations. Brad Luchsinger, from Harness IP, offers this among other useful practice tips.
For a more comprehensive examination and understanding of coming to terms with means-plus-function patent claims, we encourage legal professionals to read more on the topic through Luchsinger’s insights on Law360.