Phillips v. Awh Corp.

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
Writing for the CourtBryson
CitationPhillips v. Awh Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 2005 WL 1620331 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
Decision Date12 July 2005
Docket NumberNo. 03-1269.,No. 03-1286.,03-1269.,03-1286.
PartiesEdward H. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AWH CORPORATION, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-Cross Appellants.

Carl F. Manthei, Attorney at Law, of Boulder, Colorado, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

Mark W. Fischer, Faegre & Benson LLP, of Boulder, Colorado, argued for defendants-cross appellants. With him on the brief were Neal S. Cohen and Peter J. Kinsella. Of counsel on the brief were Maurice M. Klee, Law Office of Maurice M. Klee, Ph.D., Fairfield, Connecticut, and Kenneth C. Bass, III, Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, of Washington, DC. Of counsel was Scott E. Holwick, Faegre & Benson LLP.

John M. Whealan, Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for amicus curiae United States. With him on the brief were James A. Toupin, General Counsel; Cynthia C. Lynch; Linda Moncys Isacson; and Thomas W. Krause, Associate Solicitors. Of counsel on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; John J. Fargo, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, and Anthony J. Steinmeyer, Attorney, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC; and William E. Kovacic, General Counsel, and Suzanne T. Michel, Chief Counsel for Intellectual Property, Federal Trade Commission, of Washington, DC.

Robert L. Baechtold, Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, of New York, New York, for amici curiae Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, et al. With him on the brief were Nicholas N. Kallas, Stevan J. Bosses, and Brian V. Slater.

Paul H. Berghoff, McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, of Chicago, Illinois, for amicus curiae Intellectual Property Owners Association. With him on the brief was Joshua R. Rich. Of counsel on the brief was J. Jeffery Hawley, President, Intellectual Property Owners Association, of Washington, DC. Of counsel was Herbert C. Wamsley, Intellectual Property Owners Association.

Charles W. Bradley, Rader, Fishman & Grauer, PLLC, of Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for amicus curiae Charles W. Bradley.

Henry C. Bunsow, Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP, of San Francisco, California, for amicus curiae AD HOC Committee of Patent Owners in the Wireless Industry. With him on the brief were Robert C. Laurenson and David W. Long. Of counsel on the brief were Robert D. Yeager, Thomas J. Edgington, and Mark G. Knedeisen, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Alexander C. Johnson, Jr., Marger, Johnson & McCollom, P.C., of Portland, Oregon, for amicus curiae Oregon Patent Law Association.

Alice A. Kipel, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association.

Stephen P. McNamara, St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC, of Stamford, Connecticut, for amicus curiae Connecticut Intellectual Property Law Association. With him on the brief was Richard J. Basile. Of counsel on the brief were William J. Sapone, Coleman Sudol Sapone, P.C., of Bridgeport, Connecticut, Michael J. Rye, Cantor Colburn LLP, of Bloomfield, Connecticut.

Douglas E. Olson, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, of San Diego, California, for amicus curiae San Diego Intellectual Property Law Association. With him on the brief were Kurt M. Kjelland, John E. Peterson, and April M. Alex. Of counsel on the brief were Ned A. Israelsen, Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP, of San Diego, California, and William L. Respess, Nanogen, Inc., of San Diego, California.

John Will Ongman, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Biotechnology Industry Organization. With him on the brief was Alice O. Martin, of Chicago, Illinois. Of counsel on the brief was Stephan E. Lawton, Vice President and General Counsel, Biotechnology Industry Organization, of Washington, DC.

Steve Z. Szczepanski, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, of Chicago, Illinois, for amicus curiae Parus Holdings, Inc. With him on the brief was Mary Jo Boldingh.

Frederick A. Tecce, McShea Tecce, P.C., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for amici curiae McShea Tecce, P.C., et al.

Michael P. Dougherty, Morgan & Finnegan, L.L.P., of New York, New York, for amicus curiae Federal Circuit Bar Association. Of counsel on the brief was Charles F. Schill, President, Federal Circuit Bar Association, of Washington, DC.

Edward D. Manzo, Cook, Alex, McFarron, Manzo, Cummings & Mehler, Ltd., of Chicago, Illinois, for amicus curiae The Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago. Of counsel with him on the brief were Patrick G. Burns, Greer, Burns & Crain, Ltd., of Chicago, Illinois, Dean A. Monco, Wood, Phillips, Katz, Clark & Mortimer, of Chicago, Illinois, Bradford P. Lyerla, Marshall, Gerstein & Borun, of Chicago, Illinois, and Timothy J. Vezeau, Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman, of Chicago, Illinois.

Maxim H. Waldbaum, Schiff Hardin LLP, of New York, New York, for amicus curiae Federation Internationale Des Conseils En Propriete Industrielle. Of counsel on the brief was John P. Sutton, of San Francisco, California.

Michael R. Dzwonczyk, Sughrue Mion, PLLC, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Sughrue Mion, PLLC. With him on the brief were Frank L. Bernstein of Mountain View, California, and Brandon M. White of Washington, DC.

Sharon A. Israel, Jenkens & Gilchrist, P.C., of Houston, Texas, for amicus curiae Houston Intellectual Property Law Association. Of counsel on the brief were Jeremy P. Welch, Jonathan M. Pierce, and Jeffrey L. Johnson, Conley Rose, P.C., of Houston, Texas.

George C. Summerfield, Jr., Stadheim & Grear, of Chicago, Illinois, for amici curiae The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, et al. With him on the brief were Joseph A. Grear and Keith A. Vogt.

Bruce M. Wexler, Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, of New York, New York, for amicus curiae New York Intellectual Property Law Association. With him on the brief were Matthew S. Seidner and John D. Murnane.

Rick D. Nydegger, Workman Nydegger, of Salt Lake City, Utah, for amicus curiae American Intellectual Property Law Association. With him on the brief was David R. Todd. Of counsel on the brief were Denise W. DeFranco, Foley Hoag LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts, and Joseph R. Re and Joseph S. Cianfrani, Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, of Irvine, California.

Christopher Landau, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Infineon Technologies North America Corp. With him on the brief were John C. O'Quinn, of Washington, DC, and John M. Desmarais, Gregory S. Arovas, and Michael P. Stadnick, of New York, New York.

Mark I. Levy, Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, of Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Association of Corporate Counsel. With him on the brief were Anthony B. Askew and Eugene B. Joswick, of Atlanta, Georgia. Of counsel on the brief were Frederick J. Krebs and Susan Hackett of Washington, DC, Nelson A. Blish, Eastman Kodak, of Rochester, New York, John W. Hogan, Jr., Wyeth, of Madison, New Jersey, and Taraneh Maghame, Hewlett Packard, of Cupertino, California.

Mark A. Lemley, Keker & VanNest, LLP, of San Francisco, California, for amici curiae Intel Corporation, et al. With him on the brief were Brian L. Ferrall and Ryan M. Kent.

Erik Paul Belt, Bromberg and Sunstein LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts, for amicus curiae Boston Patent Law Association. Of counsel on the brief was Peter Corless, Edwards and Angell LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts.

Susan M. Dadio, Burns, Doane, Swecker & Mathis, L.L.P., of Alexandria, Virginia, for amicus curiae Bar Association of the District of Columbia—Patent, Trademark & Copyright Section. Of counsel on the brief was Lynn E. Eccleston, The Eccleston Law Firm, of Washington, DC.

W. Thomas McGough, Jr., Reed Smith LLP, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for amicus curiae Medrad, Inc. With him on the brief were Frederick H. Colen and Barry J. Coyne. Of counsel on the brief was Gregory L. Bradley, Medrad, Inc., of Indianola, Pennsylvania.

Peter A. Sullivan, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, of New York, New York, for amicus curiae The Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Of counsel on the brief was Catriona M. Collins, Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., of New York, New York.

Anthony R. Zeuli, Merchant & Gould P.C., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Association of Patent Law Firms. With him on the brief were Thomas J. Leach, III and Rachel Clark-Hughey. Of counsel on the brief were Scott P. McBride and Christopher R. Carroll, McAndrews, Held & Malloy Ltd., of Chicago, Illinois, and Eric R. Moran, McDonnell, Boehnen, Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, of Chicago, Illinois.

Daniel B. Ravicher, Public Patent Foundation, of New York, New York, for amicus curiae Public Patent Foundation.

Theodore T. Herhold, Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP, of Palo Alto, California, for amici curiae VISA U.S.A. Inc., et al. With him on the brief were Daniel J. Furniss, Susan M. Spaeth, Madison C. Jellins, and Mark G. Sandbaken.

Mark A. Goldstein, SoCal IP Law Group, of Westlake Village, California, for amicus curiae Conejo Valley Bar Association. With him on the brief were Steven C. Sereboff and Joel G. Landau.

Robert J. Grey, Jr., President, American Bar Association, of Chicago, Illinois, for amicus curiae American Bar Association. With him on the brief was William L. LaFuze. Of counsel on the brief were Donald R. Dunner and Richard L. Rainey, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., of Washington, DC.

R. Polk Wagner, University of Pennsylvania Law School, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for amicus curiae Patent Law Professors R. Polk Wagner, et al.

Joshua D. Sarnoff, Washington College of Law, American University, of Washington, DC, for amici curiae Consumers Union, et al.

Laura M. Slenzak, Siemens Corporation, of Auburn Hills, Michigan, for amicus curiae The State Bar of Michigan, Intellectual Property Law Section, joined in the brief of the New York...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
9444 cases
  • MICROAIRE SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS LLC. v. ARTHREX INC.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • June 3, 2010
    ...and “the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc) (emphasis added). The patentee must “define precisely what his invention is,” because it would be “unjust to the publ......
  • Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • August 18, 2012
    ...Model Patent Jury Instr. B.2.1.AuthoritiesMarkman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 384-391 (1996); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1304-13 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., 138 F.3d......
  • W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • June 18, 2012
    ...meaning in view of the specification to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316–1317 (Fed. Cir.2005). “The inquiry into how a person of ordinary skill in the art understands a claim term provides an objective baseline from wh......
  • E2interactive, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin
    • December 27, 2011
    ...steps. The first step is determining the meaning and scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed. Phillips v. A WH Corp. ,415 F.3d 1303, 1311-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The second step is comparing the properly construed claims to the device accused of infringing. Markman v. Wes......
  • Get Started for Free
153 firm's commentaries
  • Intellectual Property Basics
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • November 11, 2011
    ...embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, at 1325 (Federal Cir. 2005); Rexond Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“specifications teach, claims claim”). (b) Literal In......
  • Intellectual Property Basics (Updated)
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • November 24, 2014
    ...embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, at 1325 (Federal Cir. 2005); Rexond Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“specifications teach, claims claim”). (b) Claim Cons......
  • 2019 PTAB Digest: The Latest Trends and Developments in Post-Grant Proceedings
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • December 5, 2019
    ...the current practice of addressing the preliminary claim constructions and additional evidence at oral hearing. 1 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 2 See Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “[t]he Boar......
  • Summaries of All Supreme Court and Precedential Federal Circuit Patent Cases Decided Since Jun. 1, 2016
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • June 1, 2017
    ...the standard used by courts, which gives claims their ordinary meaning as understood by a person of skill in the art under Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F. 3d 1303. The Circuit rejected both arguments, reasoning that §314(d) made the PTO’s decision to institute IPR "nonappealable," and it conc......
  • Get Started for Free
114 books & journal articles
  • The Natural Complexity of Patent Eligibility
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 99-3, March 2014
    • March 1, 2014
    ...See, e.g. , U.S. Patent No. 8,349,334 B2 col. 93–388 (filed June 30, 2011). 321. 35 U.S.C. § 114. 322. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (discussing the central importance of the claims and the specification in interpreting a patent). 2014] THE NAT......
  • The PTAB Is Not an Article III Court, Part 2: Aqua Products v. Matal as a Case Study in Administrative Law
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide No. 10-5, May 2018
    • May 1, 2018
    ...id=1202745014401/5-Distinctions-Between-IPRs-and-District-Court-Patent-Litigation?slreturn=20170919151306. 26. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 27. Id. at 1316. 28. PTAB Trial Statistics, supra note 17; see also Peter Harter & Gene Quinn, How IPR Gang Tackling Distorts......
  • Inter Partes Review in ANDA Litigation
    • United States
    • ABA General Library ANDA litigation: strategies and tactics for pharmaceutical patent litigators
    • June 2, 2016
    ...a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.”) (alteration in original) (citations omitted); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–18 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995). 85. 778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 86. Id. ......
  • Patent Due Diligence
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Intellectual Property and Technology Due Diligence
    • January 1, 2018
    ...use terms in a manner other than their ordinary meaning. 81 The claim language should therefore be read 81. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronics, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 268 ChAPTEr 6 in light of the speciicatio......
  • Get Started for Free