Summary: CAFC finds that a preamble in a claim is limiting if that limitation is supported by the intrinsic evidence.

Case: Rotatable Techs. LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 2014-1042 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2014) (non-precedential). On appeal from E.D. Tex. Before O’Malley, Taranto, andHughes.

Procedural Posture: Patentee Rotatable Technologies LLC appealed the district court’s determination that the preamble was a claim limitation. CAFC affirmed.

  • Claim Construction: Because the intrinsic record emphasizes the importance of the preamble term “selectively rotating,” and because the patentee relied on this term during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, the CAFC affirmed that “selectively rotating” is a claim limitation. Under this construction, the parties stipulated to noninfringement.

Olena Ierega