Difference between revisions of "CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation, 288 F.3d 1359 (2002) Notes"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "elliptical fitness device, appeals court District court said CCS didnt specify reciprocating "member" as having more than one straight component. thus Life Fitness did not infri...")
 
 
Line 14: Line 14:
 
*2-step analysis
 
*2-step analysis
 
**1. determine scope of disputed term
 
**1. determine scope of disputed term
**2. compare claim to actual device
+
**2. compare claim to accused device
  
 
to interpret claim:
 
to interpret claim:

Latest revision as of 11:22, 25 March 2011

elliptical fitness device, appeals court

District court said CCS didnt specify reciprocating "member" as having more than one straight component. thus Life Fitness did not infringe on patent.

said not mentioned in claims, and drawings only show single member

CCS says the word member covers curved thing that Life was using, Life says term is too vague, can't claim curved member


infringement


  • 2-step analysis
    • 1. determine scope of disputed term
    • 2. compare claim to accused device

to interpret claim:

  • intrinsic, extrinsic evidence

word can lose its ordinary meaning if

  • patentee makes own definition stated
  • embodiment distinguishes term
  • patentees term deprives claimof clarity

appeals court says DC misinterpreted the term reciprocating member.

it can contain the curved member based on dictionary definition, intrinsic evidence