Broad patent claims can provide valuable protection, but they also create risk. Nielsen v. TVision shows why businesses should distinguish between what a patent describes and what its claims actually require, particularly when technical details may later prove important to defending the patent.
CAFC leaves the Range of Motion v. Armaid design patent framework intact, preserving judicial claim construction and the plainly dissimilar shortcut.
In Dental Monitoring v. Align, the Federal Circuit holds that AIA provisional prior art requires § 112(a) written-description support for a published claim.