Lexplug logoLexplug

Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
778 F.3d 1320 (2015)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The scope of a patent claim is limited by clear definitions and disavowals made in the patent's specification and prosecution history. A court must interpret claim terms as they would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, considering the intrinsic evidence of the patent documents as a whole.


Facts:

  • Fenner Investments, Ltd. ('Fenner') is the holder of the '706 patent, which describes a method for Personal Communication Services (PCS) systems.
  • The patent aims to solve the problem of tracking and billing users who are not tied to a specific device or location.
  • The patent's written description explicitly states: 'The personal identification numbers ... are not associated with any particular communications unit or physical location but are associated with individual users.'
  • During the patent application process, Fenner distinguished its invention from prior art (the Hayes patent) by arguing to the patent examiner that its system was 'centered around the mobile user, not the mobile telephone.'
  • The invention is described as a system where billing and call services are identified with an individual's personal identification number, contrasting with older systems where charges were associated with a specific telephone unit.
  • Célico Partnership, operating as Verizon Wireless, provides mobile communication services.

Procedural Posture:

  • Fenner Investments, Ltd. sued Célico Partnership (d/b/a Verizon Wireless) in U.S. District Court, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,561,706.
  • The district court conducted a claim construction hearing to determine the legal meaning of disputed terms in the patent.
  • The district court construed the term 'personal identification number' as 'a number... associated with the individual and not the device,' adopting Verizon's proposed construction.
  • Following this ruling, the parties stipulated to a final judgment of non-infringement in favor of Verizon.
  • Fenner Investments, Ltd., as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging the claim construction. Célico Partnership (Verizon) is the appellee.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the term 'personal identification number' in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,561,706 mean a number that is associated with an individual user and not with a particular communications device?


Opinions:

Majority - Newman, Circuit Judge

Yes, the term 'personal identification number' is correctly construed to mean a number associated with an individual user and not a specific device. The court's primary duty in claim construction is to capture the scope of the actual invention as disclosed in the patent's intrinsic evidence. The patent's specification repeatedly and explicitly describes the invention as a user-centered system, distinguishing it from prior device-centered technology by stating the personal identification number is 'not associated with any particular communications unit.' Furthermore, during the patent's prosecution history, Fenner overcame a rejection by emphasizing to the examiner that its invention was 'centered around the mobile user, not the mobile telephone.' These clear statements in the specification and arguments made during prosecution limit the claim's scope, and this intrinsic evidence outweighs countervailing arguments based on doctrines like claim differentiation.



Analysis:

This decision reaffirms the controlling weight of the patent specification and prosecution history in claim construction. It serves as a critical reminder that statements made by an inventor to distinguish their invention from prior art can create a binding limitation on the scope of the patent's claims, a principle known as prosecution history estoppel. The court clarifies that analytical tools like claim differentiation are secondary and cannot be used to broaden a claim's meaning beyond what is clearly supported and limited by the intrinsic record. This holding reinforces the public notice function of patents, ensuring that competitors can rely on the inventor's own words to understand the boundaries of the patented technology.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership (2015) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership