How does the broadest reasonable interpretation differ from the Phillips standard used in litigation?
The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard used by the USPTO differs from the Phillips claim construction standard used in federal courts during patent litigation. MPEP 2111 acknowledges this difference:
“The broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term (unless the term has been given a special definition in the specification), and must be consistent with the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings.”
Key differences include:
- Claim Construction Approach: BRI allows for a broader interpretation than Phillips, which focuses on the ordinary meaning of claim terms to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
- Presumption of Validity: In litigation, issued patents are presumed valid, which can lead to a narrower interpretation. The USPTO does not apply this presumption during examination.
- Consideration of Extrinsic Evidence: Courts may give more weight to extrinsic evidence (e.g., expert testimony, dictionaries) under Phillips, while the USPTO primarily relies on intrinsic evidence (e.g., specification, prosecution history) under BRI.
- Purpose: BRI is used to ensure claims are clear and not overly broad during examination, while Phillips aims to determine the correct scope of issued patent claims in infringement cases.
Understanding these differences is crucial for patent practitioners when drafting claims and engaging in patent prosecution or litigation.
To learn more: