APPLE V SAMSUNG
to make the interpretation that all the ‘media information’ must be compared in the claims that do not recite specific ‘media information’.
Typical techniques
Tis ruling by the IP High Court exemplifies some typical claim construction techniques that are commonly used in Japanese courts seeing infringement cases.
When construing claims, it is first considered whether or not the language can be clearly understood by those skilled in the art. If the language is not clear, the meaning is construed in accordance with the description in the specification. While the meaning of the expression ‘media information’ was at issue in the present case, the expression was construed not only based on the claim recitation, but also in terms of its purpose in view of its relationship to the problem addressed by the present invention described in the specification, with reference to the entire description.
As long as the recitations of the claims are clear, the invention must be construed on the basis of the claim recitation alone, even if the specification contains contradictory descriptions. In this case,
although the specification describes that media can be determined to match as long as specific media attributes match, the court found that the claims could be read as requiring that all ‘media information’ match.
Furthermore, the reasoning process wherein the construction of one claim is used to construe another claim was not allowed, at least in the present case. In other words, the fact that one independent claim clearly recited ‘comparison of title and artist name’ was ruled to be inadequate to derive the suggestion that other independent claims not including such a recitation could compare ‘media information’ other than the ‘title and artist name’.
Tis interpretation by the IP High Court carries the possibility of denying the interpretation that the scope of an independent claim must always be broader than the scope of a dependent claim dependent on that independent claim, which has been established by claim construction techniques in the US.
Yoshitaka Sonoda is a partner at Sonoda & Kabayashi. He can be contacted at:
ysonoda@patents.jp
Yoshitaka Sonoda has a technical background in nuclear and mechanical engineering, and is fluent in both English and French, acquired through his working experience as a researcher at the Saclay Nuclear Research Center of the French Atomic Energy Commission. Sonoda is a leading expert in the mechanical and electronic fields and is highly experienced in IP-related litigation. As a patent attorney registered to practise before the Japanese Patent Office, he oſten undertakes appeals to defend the IP rights of a broad range of clientele including private companies and public organisations in various countries. He regularly publishes articles and holds conferences and seminars on various subjects related to the Japanese patent system.
Competition is one thing. Playing outside the boundaries is another. And when it comes to addressing infringement, the U.S. International Trade Commission provides an avenue to faster case review and more rapid remedy than district courts—including the ability to stop infringing goods at the border.
Need world-class representation before the ITC? Brinks represents a vast array of clients before the Commission and has a dedicated group of ITC attorneys who are deeply experienced in Section 337 investigations. Our lawyers include two former ITC attorneys and a former ITC Administrative Law Judge.
www.worldipreview.com World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2013 63
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196