Snap-on wins claim construction argument at CAFC but still loses appeal

Snap-on challenged patents via IPR, lost, appealed, and then lost at the CAFC:Snap-on Incorporated (Snap-on) appeals from the finalwritten decisions of the Patent Trial and AppealBoard (Board) in the above-captioned inter partes reviewproceedings (IPRs) that found certain claims of three ofAppellees’ patents to be nonobvious over prior art combinationsargued by Snap-on.Of interest, Snap-on won on claim construction but lostvia the "substantial evidence" standard:Snap-on also argues that the Board erred in “entirelyread[ing] out” the term “average” in its construction.Snap-on Open. Br. 33. We agree. As a general matter, weconstrue a claim term to take on its plain and ordinarymeaning to one of skill in the art when read in the contextof the specification and prosecution history. Wasica Fin.GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed.Cir. 2017). Appellees’ own cited expert testimony states:One of ordinary skill in…

Read more detail on Recent Intellectual Property Law posts –

This entry was posted in Intellectual Property and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply