BRI = Ordinary Meaning, II

In Square, Inc. v. J. Carl Cooper, IPR2014-00157, Paper 17 (June 23, 2014), the Board concluded that in view of the patent expiration, the claims can no longer be amended, and thus they should be constructed according to their ordinary meaning. However, the Board concluded that the application of the Phillips standard did not change the construction of (1) “universal credit card/universal credit card apparatus”; (2) “transducer”; (3) “host system”; and (4) “emitter” as set forth in the Decision to Institute Review.  Yet again indicating that the broadest reasonble construction is often the ordinary meaning.

 

This entry was posted in Inter Partes Review 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.