Federal Circuit Overturns PTAB’s Unreasonably Broad Claim Construction in Favor of Previously Affirmed District Court Construction

Mar 26, 2018

Reading Time : 3 min

In 2004, Power Integrations, Inc. asserted U.S. Patent No. 6,249,876 (“the ’876 patent”) against Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. in the District of Delaware. The ’876 Patent is entitled “Frequency Jittering Control for Varying the Switching Frequency of a Power Supply” and describes a “technique for reducing electromagnetic interference (“EMI”) noise by jittering the switching frequency of a switched mode power supply.” Decision at 2. Each of the asserted claims involves the coupling of a “counter” and an “oscillator” or other similar component. For example, claim 1 requires “a counter coupled to the output of the oscillator, the digital to analog converter coupled to the counter, the counter causing the digital to analog converter to adjust the control input and to vary the switching frequency of the power supply.” Decision at 2. At issue in these proceedings was the construction of the term “coupled” as used in the asserted claims.      

The patent-at-issue was the subject of multiple district court proceedings, appeals to the Federal Circuit and an ex parte reexamination. In the first district court proceeding, the court adopted the patent owner’s proposed construction for the “coupled” term, “concluding that it was ‘consistent with the claim language and the context of the specification which describes the purpose.’” Decision at 4 (internal citations omitted). Subsequently, the jury returned a verdict of nonobviousness, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on appeal. In a second proceeding, the Federal Circuit affirmed another jury’s determination of no anticipation.

During the pendency of the district court proceedings, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted a request for ex parte reexamination of several claims of the patent-at-issue. The examiner rejected the claims. On appeal to the Board, the patent owner pointed to the district court’s claim construction, but its arguments were rejected in favor of a broader construction based solely on a “generalist dictionary.” Decision at 6.

Following the Board’s denial of a petition for rehearing, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision because “it had ‘fundamentally misconstrued [Patent Owner’s] principal claim construction argument and failed to provide a full and reasoned explanation of its decision.’” Decision at 7. The Federal Circuit explained further that, although the Board “is not generally bound by a prior judicial construction of a claim term,” because patent owner’s “principal argument to the [B]oard about the proper interpretation of the term . . . was expressly tied to the district court’s claim construction, . . . the [B]oard had an obligation . . . to evaluate that construction and to determine whether it was consistent with the broadest reasonable construction of the term.” Decision at 7.

On remand, the Board determined that “a comparison of its claim construction with that of the district court was ‘unwarranted’” and affirmed the examiner’s rejection based on the same construction that it had applied previously. Decision at 8. The patent owner subsequently appealed.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit addressed the differences between the district court and Board claim constructions and found that the Board’s “claim construction [] was unreasonably broad and improperly omitted any consideration of the disclosure in the specification.” Decision at 10. In particular, the Federal Circuit noted that the USPTO “acknowledge[d] that claim 1 requires some type of ‘functional relationship,’” but the Board’s “claim construction d[id] not define what type of functional relationship [was] required.” Decision at 10-11. The Federal Circuit further noted that the Board’s claim construction “renders [the] claim language meaningless” and is “unsupported by the specification.” Decision at 11-12. For these reasons, the Federal Circuit determined that the district court’s construction, which was “firmly rooted in the plain claim language and the specification, comports with the broadest reasonable construction of the term.” Decision at 16. Based on this construction, the Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s affirmance of the examiner.

In this instance, the Federal Circuit demonstrated a willingness to overturn the Board’s determination of the broadest reasonable interpretation where that interpretation was unsupported by the intrinsic record. It further provided an example of a claim limitation for which the proper construction was the same under both the district court and USPTO standards.

In Re: Power Integrations, Inc., No. 2017-1304 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 19, 2018)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.