About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


6 J. Bus. & Tech. L. Proxy 1 (2011)

handle is hein.journals/jbtprxy6 and id is 1 raw text is: NGAI ZHANG* Marteck Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc.: Flipping the Lexiographer Rule on its Head IN MARTEK BIOSCIENCES CORP. V. NUTRINOVA, INC.,' THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT considered whether the claim term animal included humans where the patent specification provides a single sentence definition for the claim term.' The Martek court held that the term animal included humans because the specification contained a sentence that gave the term the broader construction of any Animalia organism rather than that of its ordinary meaning and the rest of the specification did not reveal the patentee's clear intent to renounce such broad scope.' In so holding, the Martek court ruled that when a patentee explicitly assigns a special meaning to a claim term anywhere in the specification, the new meaning controls unless the specification reveals that the patentee unmistakably rejects that definition.' As such, the majority created a new rule that effectively turns the established lexicographer rule-that the specification must reveal the patentee's clear intent to override the term's ordinary meaning-on its head.5 If the majority had followed precedent, it would have found that Martek did not satisfy the lexicographer rule, and thus, held that Martek's purported definition did not override the plain meaning of the term animal, which did not include humans.6 By announcing its new rule, the court conceivably modified the legal scope of patents drafted in reliance on the established lexicographer rule-either inconsistently broadening or narrowing such scope.' © 2011 Ngai Zhang. I J.D. 2011, University of Maryland School of Law. 1. 579 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 2. Martek, 579 F.3d at 1379-80. Claim term may refer to words or phrases in the claims section of the patent specification. In patent law, a bedrock principle is that the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude. Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 3. Martek, 579 F.3d at 1380. 4. Id. 5. See infra Part IV.A. 6. See infra Part IV.B. 7. See infra Part IV.C. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS & TECHNOLOGY LAW PROXY