Broader Doesn't Mean Better: Specification Ambiguity Works Against Patent Owners
Practically every patent attorney drafting a patent application has run into requests to ensure the patent application is sufficiently broad. I couldn't even count the number of times when I tried to include a core feature of an invention into a patent application, but faced push-back because the inventor or in-house counsel stated, "We don't want to be limited to that". Many times, this is good practice. However, like many things in life, it is very easy to get too much of a good thing when it comes to the broadness of patent claims.
The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2023-2346, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 762 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2025) demonstrates how ambiguity in patent specifications can result in overly broad readings of terms that work against patent holders during claim construction.
"Series" Connection Ambiguity
In this case, the Federal Circuit considered terms in U.S. Patent No. 10,687,400 ("the '400 patent"). Id. at *1. The Specification of the '400 patent failed to provide a clear definition of what constitutes "a plurality of LEDs connected in series". Instead, the specification included examples of both individual LEDs connected in series and groups of LEDs connected in series, without explicitly defining which configuration was claimed. Id. at *24-25. This ambiguity led the Federal Circuit to adopt a broad interpretation that encompassed both configurations - individual LEDs connected in series or groups of LEDs connected in series - because both included a "plurality of LEDs". Id. at *26.
"Matches" Interpretation Issues
Similarly, the '400 patent included the phrase "a forward voltage of the LEDS of the LED circuit array matches the rectified input AC voltage of the driver. Id. at *27-28. The Federal Circuit ruled that treatment of the term "matches" lacked clarity. The '400 patent discussed three different contexts for "matching" voltages:
领英推荐
This inconsistent treatment led the Federal Circuit to adopt a broader interpretation that included both equivalence and situations where the rectified input AC voltage output was less than the forward voltage of the LEDs. Id. at *34-35
Key Takeaway
The decision in Lynk demonstrates that when a patent specification contains multiple, potentially conflicting descriptions of claim terms, courts may adopt broader interpretations that encompass all disclosed variations. This broader interpretation often benefits challengers in invalidity proceedings, as it did here where Samsung successfully invalidated multiple claims of Lynk's patent. Thus, it is important to consider all the ways that a particular phrase or term could be interpreted when laying out a patent application.
There were multiple chances to avoid an overly broad interpretation of "series" and "matches". As one option, the Specification could have narrowly defined and used these terms consistently, but this comes at a cost of claim breadth. In my view, the better approach would be to make sure that the claims themselves are more specific and deliberate with the use of the terms "series" and "matches". In both these cases, a well-crafted dependent claim could have been added to avoid ambiguity of the terms.
Patent and Trademark Lawyer and Coach. Podcast Host. Martial Artist.
1 个月A thorough claim construction analysis before filing might be cause for tweaking the claims for example in a continuation or reexam.
Patent Attorney, Compass IP Law PC
1 个月I have been preaching this for over a decade. Broader is not necessarily better, and broad and vague is still broad and vague. Claim the Damn Invention! Quit trying to claim something much broader than what the inventor truly invented. There was (and maybe still is) a historical mindset where patent prosecutors had an objective of getting claims past an examiner, with no additional consideration whether those claims would withstand an invalidity attack. Don't just throw in boilerplate without tying it to one or more embodiments, preferably with an example (and better yet shown in a drawing figure).
I develop, draft, and manage Platform Technology patent portfolios. My clients are funded startups and early stage innovators whose success is premised on obtaining broad patents quickly and at relatively low cost.
1 个月Adjacent explanation that just came up this morning--it is often the case that the drafter does not understand the underlying invention and just throws a bunch of disclosure against the wall. I am currently drafting an application for a chemical process where I found knock out art for a significant portion of the process, thus setting up a strong 103 if we are not careful to distinguish the processes. The prior art patent reference is directed to a very different endpoint and the knock out portion is non-functional as to the endpoint of the process that is my inventor's innovation. The inventor is saying "Hey, that won't work, it's dumb!" I had to explain that it doesn't matter to the effectiveness of the reference on paper, of course. And, finding this reference before our application is filed makes all the difference. Having to spend the time to address BS disclosure in a random patent reference does highlight that may practitioners think it's important to throw in boilerplate to make a disclosure look more meaty even if the disclosure is non-operable and, often, irrelevant to the core invention that is the reason for an application in the first order. And, this is why I tell my clients "everything is obvious in chemistry."
I find innovative solutions to cut operating costs without layoffs with direct impact on the bottom line | Expense Reduction | Business Consulting and Systems | Trusted Advisor | Cost Management | Strategy |
1 个月It would be interesting to understand the subsequent cost that was incurred as a result of the ambiguity?