Another Case Where BRI=Ordinary Meaning

Posted on by

In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. AIP Acquisition LLC, IPR2014-00247, Paper 20 (July 10, 2014), the Board previously held that if U.S. Patent No. 7,724,879 expires before the final written decision, the claims would be given their ordinary meaning rather than their broadest reasonable interpretation.  In Paper 20 the Board decided that coincidentally, the ordinary meaning and the broadest reasonable interpretation for the disputed terms were the same.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by Bryan Wheelock. Bookmark the permalink.

About Bryan Wheelock

Education J.D., Washington University in St. Louis B.S.E. in Mechanical Engineering, Duke University Bryan Wheelock's practice includes preparation and prosecution of patent and trademark applications and drafting of intellectual property agreements, including non-compete agreements. He has brought and defended lawsuits in federal and state courts relating to intellectual property and has participated in seizures of counterfeit and infringing goods. Bryan prepares and prosecutes U.S. and foreign patent applications for medical devices, mechanical and electromechanical devices, manufacturing machinery and processes, metal alloys and other materials. He also does a substantial amount of patentability searching, trademark availability searching and patent and trademark infringement studies. In addition to his practice at Harness Dickey, Bryan is an Adjunct Professor at Washington University School of Law and Washington University School of Engineering.