top of page

Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2020)

A claim construction that excludes the preferred embodiment (by asserting that the term "brewing chamber" means a fully-enclosed space in this case) is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.

There is no precise rule or formula for deciding whether a case is exceptional [for purposes of awarding attorney's fees]. An exceptional case is “simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.”


A specification adequately supports the addition of a negative limitation where the limitation is expressly disclaimed or where “independent lexicography in the written description” justifies adding it [but neither occurred in this case].

“[I]t is not appropriate for the court to construe a claim solely to exclude the accused device”. The district court thus erred by rewriting the claimed "passageway" to exclude a broad, thin mesh.

Read the case here.

Recent Posts

See All

U.S. Supreme Court opinion of Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi

Post by Paul Serbinowski What must the specification disclose to enable broad functional claim language? A week ago in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the U.S. Supreme Court considered what the specification mu


Commenting has been turned off.
bottom of page