Public Patent Foundation
Free Claim Construction Dictionaries » PUBPAT Releases Free Claim Construction Dictionaries

PUBPAT RELEASES FREE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DICTIONARIES: Dr. David Garrod's Glossaries of Judicial Claim Constructions Available Free of Charge

NEW YORK -- March 1, 2010 --  The Public Patent Foundation, Inc. ("PUBPAT") is pleased to announce that Dr. David Garrod, PUBPAT's Senior Litigation Counsel, has decided to release his groundbreaking claim construction dictionaries free of charge through PUBPAT's web site.  The latest versions of the Garrod Glossaries of Judicial Claim Construction are available for immediate download as PDF files from PUBPAT's Free Claim Construction Dictionaries page.

Commenting on the release, PUBPAT's Executive Director Dan Ravicher stated, "This is a huge contribution to the public knowledge about patents. No other tool, for example, allows one to locate the 30+ cases that construe the word 'coupled' in a matter of minutes, and for free, too. [See Sample Content, below] Dave's been a good friend of PUBPAT. I'm very happy that he's decided to release these documents to the public now and am confident that they will quickly become 'go-to' resources for anyone researching patent issues."

Each of the released volumes covers district and appellate court decisions in the indicated subject areas, starting with the Federal Circuit's 1995 Markman decision and running through the end of 2009. Content appears in an easy-to-read dictionary format, indexed by the exact claim language construed. Because the usefulness of any particular construction depends critically on the reason that the court adopted the construction in question (e.g., was it "plain meaning" or a definition in the patent), each entry is endnote-linked to the relevant decisional text, with the portions of the full-text that define the particular construction highlighted for easy reference.

We hope you will find these files useful.  We'd be happy to receive your comments/feedback. If you have comments or questions, or would like to be notified when the Glossaries are updated, please write to info@pubpat.org, or feel free to contact Dave directly at garrod@pubpat.org.

Sample Content

As an example of the content, here is what the collective set of dictionaries provides for the term "coupled" (the endnote links that provide the full-text context are omitted):

  • "coupled to receive" — "capable of receiving." In re Translogic Technology, Inc., 504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

  • "coupled" — "is not limited to a mechanical or physical coupling." Johnson Worldwide Associates, Inc. v. Zebco Corp., et al., 175 F.3d 985 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

  • "electrocardiograph module coupled to a handheld module by a cable" — "electrocardiograph (ECG) module that is external to and attached to the handheld module by a cable." General Electric Co., et al. v. Sonosite, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33223 (W.D. Wis., Jan. 8, 2008).

  • "coupled" — "adjacent and directly connected to." Boston Scientific SciMed, Inc., et al. v. ev3 Inc., 502 F. Supp. 2d 931 (D. Minn. 2007).

  • "coupled" — "connected, directly or indirectly." Biax Corp. v. Intel Corp., et al., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14250 (E.D. Tex., March 1, 2007).

  • "coupled to a telephone" — "connected to a telephone receiving an incoming call." Klausner Technologies, Inc. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., et al., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57604 (E.D. Tex., Aug. 7, 2007).

  • "coupled to" — "Any further construction at this point would be both unnecessary and unhelpful. The terms 'direct' and 'indirect' are themselves ambiguous. Thus, adopting one of the parties' constructions would only invite further debate at summary judgment regarding the meaning of those terms." Extreme Networks, Inc. v. Enterasys Networks, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86568 (W.D. Wis., Nov. 21, 2007).

  • "coupled" — "connected without an intervening valve that may impede flow to the first condenser during normal operation." Desert Aire Corp. v. AAON, Inc., 461 F. Supp. 2d 369 (D. Md. 2006).

  • "coupled" — "two circuits are coupled when they are connected such that voltage, current or control signals pass from one to another. ... the Court's construction ... should not be read to imply or necessitate a direct connection, as the Court does not read the patent to require a direct connection or to preclude the use of intermediate circuit elements." Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., et al., 422 F. Supp. 2d 446 (D. Del. 2006).

  • "a control coupled only to said preprogrammed memory for selectively communicating said preprogrammed memory to said electronic control module" — "a control coupled to the preprogrammed memory for the sole purpose of permitting the transfer of information from the preprogrammed memory to the electronic control module at different times and for different purposes." Adrain v. Superchips, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25212 (S.D. Tex., March 14, 2006). "This term means that the external module includes a control circuit that is connected only to the preprogrammed memories and to nothing else. The control circuit is used to regulate or guide the operation of the vehicle. The control circuit regulates or guides the operation of the vehicle according to the additional program within the preprogrammed memory in lieu of, that is, instead of, the original program within the fixed system's memory." Adrain v. Hypertech, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3732 (D. Utah, Mar. 6, 2002).

  • "a device coupled to the local bus" —"device directly connected to the local bus." PCTEL, Inc. v. Agere Systems, Inc., et al., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25943 (N.D. Cal., March 20, 2006).

  • "coupled between" — "While the court cannot disagree with Hynix's tautological reasoning, Hynix has not provided any reason why its far more cumbersome construction would assist a jury perform its duties better than the simple term 'coupled between.' Accordingly, the court declines to construe this term." Toshiba Corp. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., et al., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63313 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 21, 2006).

  • "coupled to" — "linked together, connected, or joined." Bradford Co. v. Afco Manufacturing, et al., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88547 (S.D. Ohio, Dec. 5, 2006).

  • "coupled to" — "joined or connected to during performance of the algorithm." Roche Diagnostics Corp., et al. v. Apex Biotechnology Corp., et al., 455 F. Supp. 2d 840 (S.D. Ind. 2005).

  • "coupled" ― "connected, directly or indirectly, to allow the transfer of signals or information." WeddingChannel.com, Inc. v. Knot, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 991 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2005).

  • "a printer ... coupled to the money order dispenser" ― "cover[s] a printer that is mechanically or physically connected to the dispenser, rather than merely electrically connected." Travelers Express Company, Inc. v. Transaction Tracking Technologies, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46009 (D. Minn., May 2, 2005).

  • "coupled" ― "directly or indirectly connected." Foundry Networks v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46840 (E.D. Tex., May 24, 2005).

  • "coupled" — "describ[es] a direct connection, specifically, a connection between subsystems without intervening subsystems, a connection between components without intervening components, and a connection between components and subsystems without any intervening components." Zoran Corp., et al. v. Mediatek, Inc., et al., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34422 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 9, 2005).

  • "coupled" ― "the transfer of energy over a conductive or dielectric medium, such as an optical waveguide or wire." CIENA Corp., et al. v. Corvis Corp., 334 F. Supp. 2d 598 (D. Del. 2004).

  • "connected"; "coupled" ― "directly united, joined, or linked together." Mosaid Technologies, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27636 (D.N.J., Mar. 23, 2004).

  • "coupled" ― "electrically connected, directly or indirectly." Intergraph Hardware Technologies Co. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31055 (E.D. Tex., Jun. 30, 2004).

  • "coupled to" ― "directly connected to or attached to." Acacia Media Technologies Corp. v. New Destiny Internet Group, et al., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13415 (C.D. Cal., Jul. 12, 2004).

  • "coupled" ― "associated in such a way that power or signal information may be transferred from one to another." Verizon California Inc. v. Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P., 326 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (C.D. Cal. 2003).

  • "coupled to the independent poles and rebounding mat" — "connected to the independent poles and to the rebounding mat, either directly or through a discrete coupling device that is not an element of the trampoline or enclosure." Jumpsport, Inc. v. Jumpking, Inc., et al., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27261 (N.D. Cal., Jun. 2, 2003).

  • "coupled"; "coupled to" ― "linked together." Citec, Inc. v. Romtec, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27833 (D. Md., Dec. 5, 2003).

  • "coupled" ― "connected, directly or indirectly, by a communication path." EMC Corp. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27824 (D. Mass., Sept. 12, 2003).

  • "coupled to" — "connected, not through an impedance matching network, but in a fashion that allows for the transfer of power." Applied Science and Technology, Inc. v. Advanced Energy Industries, Inc., 204 F. Supp. 2d 712 (D. Del. 2002).

  • "coupled" — "connected, directly or indirectly." Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27117 (E.D. Tex., Jun. 3, 2002).

  • "a drain electrode coupled to said drain conductive region" — "This 'coupling' is properly construed to indicate device current flowing through both the drain conductive region and the electrode." International Rectifier Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25711 (C.D. Cal., Jul. 16, 2001).

  • "coupled" — "The court finds no reason not to apply the ordinary meaning of the term 'couple,' and determines that the ordinary meaning in this context is 'coupled or connected, directly or indirectly.'" Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. nVIDIA Corp., 58 F. Supp. 2d 331 (D. Del. 1999).

  • "coupled" — "signifies direct contact between two objects." Biomedical Polymers, Inc. v. Evergreen Industries, Inc., 976 F. Supp. 98 (D. Mass. 1997).

 

###

© 2003 - 2014 Public Patent Foundation | Contact | RSS