If the patent prosecution record clearly defines a claim term, then a dictionary definition or ordinary meaning of the term cannot be relied on to widen the scope of the term, according to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In a case involving flexible mesh plugs for the surgical repair of hernias, Bard sued US Surgical for infringement of its patented plug design. The Bard plug has a pleated design, whereas the US Surgical plug does not. Bard's claim noted that the surface of the plug is 'conformable' and 'pliable', although the specification never clearly defined that the surface must be pleated. However, during the patent prosecution history, Bard argued that the surface is pleated to distinguish its claims over the prior art. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court and found that Bard's claimed plug must have a pleated surface, and that therefore there is no infringement.
References
C.R. Bard, Inc. versus United States Surgical Corp., 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 22738 (Fed. Cir., October 29, 2004): http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1135.pdf
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Intrinsic evidence trumps dictionary definitions. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3, 990 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1592
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1592