Federal Circuit Reaffirms That Claim Construction under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard Must Be Reasonable in Light of the Claims and Specification

Apr 20, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

In the instant case, the court found that PTAB had construed two claim limitations, “adapted to” and “thumb switch,” unreasonably broad. The court rejected PTAB’s constructions, because they allowed the claims to cover disclaimed configurations, and ruled that “the proper BRI construction is not just the broadest construction, but rather the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” The court found PTAB’s constructions allowed the claims, which were directed to remote control technology, to cover desktop mouse technology and to cover a button that could be engaged simply by a thumb, rather than a button specifically designed for it. However, the court also found that specification of the challenged patent explicitly distinguishes prior art that is directed to these configurations. The court reasoned that the “broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term cannot be so broad as to include a configuration expressly disclaimed in the specification.” The court then construed the limitations to exclude the disclaimed configurations. Based on these narrower constructions, the court found that asserted prior art did not anticipate the claims, but that several claims were still invalid as obvious over that same prior art.

This case highlights the similarities between the claim construction standards implemented by district courts and by PTAB, both of which require the claims and specification to be a touchstone for claim construction.

In Re: Man Machine Interface Tech. LLC, 2015-1562 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2016).
[Stoll (opinion), Lourie, O’Malley].

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

November 17,2025

The district of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s partial motion to dismiss pre-suit willful infringement from the litigation, finding instead that the allegations taken as a whole were sufficient to support pre-suit willfulness at the pleading stage. Specifically, the court found that the allegations as to the defendant’s involvement in a related foreign opposition proceeding and participation in the relevant industry were accompanied by detailed factual support that sufficiently pleaded willful infringement for the pre-suit period.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 14, 2025

The Ninth Circuit recently reversed a district court’s decision to strike a plaintiff’s trade secret claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) at the discovery stage. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit made clear that under the DTSA, whether a party defined their trade secret with sufficient particularity is a question of fact that generally does not lend itself to resolution in the absence of at least some discovery. This ruling contrasts with the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), which requires a party to define their trade secrets with reasonable particularity before commencing discovery.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a summary judgment ruling of invalidity, holding that the district court erred in applying preclusive effect to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s unpatentability findings regarding other claims in the same patent. In doing so, the Federal Circuit reiterated that issue preclusion does not apply where the prior factual determinations were made under a lower standard of proof.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

November 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently clarified the requirement for work disclosed in a reference to qualify as “by another” under pre-AIA Sections 102(a) and (e), holding that there must be complete inventive identity between the information disclosed in the asserted reference and the inventors named on the relevant patent. 

...

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.