The following articles have been created as part of GHB Intellect’s IP Blog. Here you will find articles that outline current topics in the intellectual property industry like new technologies, patent laws, and IP service insight.
“Wireless” devices are so common in everyday life, that almost no one thinks of the literal meaning as “not needing wires.” The devices we now carry around with us would be useless if they had to be connected like a land line phone.
The following is an excerpt from the published article entitled Patent Portfolio Valuations – Importance of IP and Patents by IP Watchdog. The featured article was written by GHB Intellect’s Chief Strategy Officer and valuation expert, Dr. Masoud Vakili.
A patent claim chart is commonly used in U.S. Patent infringement litigation and can be in tabular (for evidence of use) or graphical formats. The claim chart is basically a visualization of all of the information analyzed in a patent claim. The purpose of a claim chart is to determine if any infringement has occurred. You can watch the presentation below for a quick tutorial on claim chat types, when they are used, and why they are used. We will also provide an overview of a litigation chart example s well as tools such as the patent tools claim chart generator. The content below is a transcript of the video presentation and slightly expands upon the recorded information.
There are many different use cases for claim charts. Simply put, a claim chart is a tabular or graphical presentation that breaks a patent claim into its constituent elements, or limitations. For each element, evidences of use or prior art are presented. The goal of a claim chart is to systematically present the mapping between each claim limitation and the evidences of use, prior art, intent, etc.
Depending on the application of the claim chart, the evidences provided are usually to prove or analyze the use of the claimed invention in a product, service, or standard; the invalidity of the patent claim; or the intended meaning of each claim limitation, phrase, or word. For more information on GHB Intellect’s broader offerings including litigation support, please navigate to our patent analysis services page.
There is also a cousin of the claim chart, called a specification chart (or spec chart) that we do not discuss in the video above, but may present in a future presentation. Specification charts, instead of looking into the patent claims, we focus on the patent specification (or description).
A claim chart is used in a variety of patent evaluation cases: patent infringement analysis or litigation, Patent invalidity analysis or litigation, Patent licensing and marketing, & Claim construction arguments. For infringement analysis & litigation, claim charts help confirm or dis-confirm that each and every limitation of the claim is present in a product, service, or standard. For invalidity analysis in litigation, claim charts help confirm or dis-confirm the novelty of a claim relative to prior art.
Depending on the application, the level of detail and due diligence provided in a claim chart may vary significantly. For example, for marketing or licensing, far less due diligence is used than in court cases.
Claim charts have been required with IP court submissions since 1983 following the famous case: Summagraphics Corporation v. U.S. to help construct clear claim arguments. The court determined that “Partial Dismissal Order made clear this court’s intention that patent claims not delineated in plaintiff’s pretrial statement shall no longer be asserted in this case. ‘Plaintiff’s pretrial statement failed to include claim charts relating to the Nadon patent; thus, plaintiff shall also be precluded from asserting the Nadon patent at trial.'” Set as precedent, all litigation that occurs now includes detailed claim charts well before discovery has ended.
Although there are many different types of claim charts, three types are most prominent. An Evidence-of-Use (EoU) or Infringement Chart shows how a product or process accused of infringement contains each claim element to satisfy the ‘all elements test’ for infringement and is prepared by the plaintiff or patent owner. The all elements rule is a legal test used in US patent law to determine whether a patent claim lacks the novelty required to be valid and whether the combination of references relied upon shows obviousness for each claimed element.
An Invalidity Chart or Chart of References, shows invalidity of a patent due to anticipation or obviousness. It is prepared by a defendant or party accused of infringing on a patent. A Claim Construction or Claim Interpretation Chart, shows patent specification or technical literature citations with proper interpretations of the language of a claim and is prepared by both plaintiffs & defendants.
For internal use, preliminary research and analysis to detect potential infringement or prior art allows for quick review and is usually only a high-level presentation to internal decision-makers. Marketing uses generally include high-level mapping, which shows the potential for use to potential buyers or licensees. For Licensing or Sale purposes, Mid-level mapping and analysis are required and may include reverse engineering results. Sufficient details must be included to allow the potential buyer or licensee to determine the value and risk of the IP.
When it comes to assertion, defending patent rights or a product against an opposing patent claim is the goal. So, detailed mapping and analysis, including reverse engineering evidence is needed for legal negotiations between opposing parties. In court litigation, the highest level of due diligence and detail in terms of mapping, analysis, evidence presentation, and claim interpretations are required.
Claim charts can be presented in a number of formats. The most common formats are Table format and Graphical format. Typically, table format is a 2-column, sometimes 3-column, table in word processing software like Microsoft Word. The left column consists of rows of claim elements (usually separated in the claim by commas or semicolons). The second column contains evidences gathered regarding each claim element. The third column contains comments and arguments made regarding the claim elements correspondence and mapping to the evidences presented. If it’s a 2-column format, the comments are embedded along with the evidences in the 2nd column. However, care should be taken to make sure it is clear to the reader what is a comment and what is an excerpt from an evidentiary source.
The graphical format of a claim chart is typically presented in a slide deck where each slide highlights and focuses on one claim element or a part thereof. Evidences of use are shown on each slide and graphically mapped to the relevant parts of the claim element. Again, using very clear formatting differences, the comments are distinguished from the evidences.
As an example, the table format of an evidence of use chart would outline very specific claim elements like “a video processor for implementing communication between the video processor and a host CPU.” The evidence is shown in separate reference sections – each with their own notes. Although this may seem simple, this would only be the first step of what can be a very long and incredibly specific process depending on the technology being used.
The important fact to keep in mind is that, ALL limitations (i.e., requirements) of a claim in a patent claim chart needs to be addressed and shown to be used in a product or service before one can conclude that a claim is being used (or infringed). As such, every word and phrase in the claim chart can be very important in this analysis and would need to be addressed.
When it comes to the graphical, or slide, format, each slide focuses on one claim element (the claim preamble is an exception and may be combined with the first element). If a claim element is rather long or complicated, multiple slides may be dedicated to completely map it. Each limitation is highlighted in the element using a different underlining or highlighting color. It is important to use the same color to identify the relevant evidence found to make it as easy for the reader as possible to follow the logic. We encourage you to watch the video above for an illustrative example of the two claim charts.
This is only a high-level presentation to get you familiar with the patent claim chart and how it is used in the intellectual property world. There are useful claim chart tools like a patent tools claim chart generator and patent claim mapping sites to help you with your claim chart. We are happy to help you throughout this process so contact us for further information.
The Daubert standard provides a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony during a United States federal legal proceeding. The rule of evidence, also known as the law of evidence, covers the principles that govern the proof of facts in a case.
This tutorial, presented at DesignCon 2017, provides a critical look at the potential opportunities for 4G & pre-5G technology. Slides from the presentation are available here for free download. Additionally, a recap of the presentation can also be found.
It has become a regular topic of conversation for many people in the tech industry; “What are your thoughts on the approaching 5G transition?” There are many aspects to consider when approaching this question. GHB Intellect answers this question using a practical understanding of 4G and 5G Radio Access Networks (RAN).
We will be discussing several aspects of the Internet of Things (IoT) in the article below. First, we will provide a brief summary of IoT. Then, we will discuss how the technology market, patent trends, and government interventions will continue to influence it. The changes to the automotive industry will also be further examined to show why it will remain a segment leader in innovation for connected-devices.
In a complex legal and engineering world, it can be difficult to understand how an intellectual property consulting firm fits into the broader scope of portfolio analysis, reverse engineering, and other needed expert work. The following infographic will help explain “How GHB Intellect Chooses Experts.”
In many, if not most, IP cases the utilization of both consulting experts and testifying experts is common. One key difference between the two is the ability for the opposing counsel to depose a testifying witness while the work of consulting experts is generally protected as part of work-product privilege.
When handling cases involving these complex IP issues, often in regards to technology, the choice of a knowledgeable expert can be critical to determining the relevant facts of a case and interpretation of those facts. A combination of external legal counsel and a company’s in house resources is necessary to determine what type of expert will be needed as well as creating criteria for the selection of a qualified expert from the desired field.