Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |
| precedential:2025:claim_construction_-_disclaimer [2026/05/20 20:08] – len | precedential:2025:claim_construction_-_disclaimer [2026/05/20 20:16] (current) – [Related applicant's prosecution history is relevant only when the earlier prosecution addresses a limitation in common with the claim term being construed] len |
|---|
| In //{{ :legal:construction:disclaimed_subj_matter:maquet_cardovascular_23-2045.pdf |Maquet Cardiovascular v. Abiomed}}//, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded to the district court's claim construction claims with added negative limitations. The court held that prosecution disclaimer from a related patent's prosecution is relevant only when the earlier prosecution addresses a limitation in common with the claim term being construed; material differences in claim language (e.g., claiming an “entire elongate lumen distal to” a component versus a “guide mechanism comprising a lumen”) defeat reliance on that history to import a negative limitation. | In //{{ :legal:construction:disclaimed_subj_matter:maquet_cardovascular_23-2045.pdf |Maquet Cardiovascular v. Abiomed}}//, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded to the district court's claim construction claims with added negative limitations. The court held that prosecution disclaimer from a related patent's prosecution is relevant only when the earlier prosecution addresses a limitation in common with the claim term being construed; material differences in claim language (e.g., claiming an “entire elongate lumen distal to” a component versus a “guide mechanism comprising a lumen”) defeat reliance on that history to import a negative limitation. |
| |
| | * [[fin>en/insights/blogs/federal-circuit-ip/federal-circuit-vacates-non-infringement-judgment-over-improper-claim-construction.html|Summary]] |
| ===== Applicant's acquiescence to Examiner's repeated characterization constituted disavowal ===== | ===== Applicant's acquiescence to Examiner's repeated characterization constituted disavowal ===== |
| |
