In claim drafting, like the song says, “little things mean a lot.” (Mikkelsen Graphic Engineering Inc. v. Zund America, Inc.)

One of the primary purposes of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (C.A.F.C.) is to ensure consistent claim construction results from the several district courts. Well, good luck on that! (American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. v. Geoquip, Inc. and American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. v. Bay Machinery Corporation)

As anyone who has read our informative yet witty book, Essentials Of Intellectual Property, should be aware, broad patent claims are good. However, claims which are too broad are not good. (MagSil Corp. et al. v. Seagate Technology, et al.)

Broadly speaking¹, patent claims may cover either products (article claims) or processes (method claims). Method claims have become increasingly common as inventors seek to patent various methods of conducting business operations, especially conducting business via the internet – the infamous “business method patents.” Infringement of a method claim occurs when each step recited in the claim is performed in the practice of the accused process. Moreover – and an aspect frequently overlooked by both patentees and patent draftspeople,² each step must be performed by the same party.