Summary: CAFC finds that written description requirement for term “including” was satisfied by the patentee.
Case: Lochner Techs., Llc v. Vizio, Inc., No. 2013-1551 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2014) (non-precedential). On appeal from C.D. Cal. Before O’Malley, Taranto, and Chen.
Procedural Posture: Patent owner Lochner appealed from the district court’s final judgment of invalidity for lack of written description and failure to claim what the applicants regard as their invention. Because district court’s written description and “regards as invention” analyses were predicated on a flawed claim construction, the CAFC vacated and remanded.
- Written Description: The district court interpreted the term “including” to mean that the “reach of the claim scope is infinity once an accused product’s input-output system features the recited components.” The court then found that because these open-ended claims did not limit themselves to a limited number of components, the written description requirement was not satisfied. CAFC vacated this construction because the district court “gave controlling effect to the word ‘including’ without reference to the claim language following it, the patent in which it appears, and the patent’s prosecution history.”