Akeva L.L.C. v. Nike, Inc., et al.

A patent is a property right defined by its claims. The process of interpreting claims—claim construction—affects virtually every patent, patent law and litigation. And because patents define property , precedent has emphasized the need for consistency and predictability. Without those, patentees, licensees, and competitors cannot make informed judgments about what a claim covers, undermining efforts to enforce, invest, and innovate. Over three decades, however, the Federal Circuit has perpetuated an intra-circuit split between two distinct sets of conflicting precedents. One set “heav[ily] presume[s]” the claim text bears its “ordinary meaning” in the relevant field wherein the patent’s specification affects claim construction “ only ” by meeting an “exacting” standard for (a) “clear” lexicography, i.e., a special definition; or (b) a “clear” disclaimer. The second set takes a “holistic” approach that permits the specification to affect claim construction in various ways not limited to “exacting” lexicography or disclaimer. Despite this exacerbating judicial divide, the Federal Circuit has refused to resolve it. This resulting unpredictability in claim-construction and the property rights so affected are anathema to the clarity required by this Court’s precedents and 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2, undermining the investment-andinnovation goals of the Patent Clause, Art. I., § 8, cl. 8. The question presented is: Whether the Federal Circuit’s “heavy presumption” line of cases or its “holistic” line should govern claim construction.