Judge Andrews issued a claim construction opinion today resolving an interesting dispute.
The parties disagreed as to whether the patentee had acted as its own lexicographer. Here is the text from the patent spec:
As used herein, the term “plant” includes reference to whole plants, plant organs (e.g., leaves, stems, roots, etc.), seeds and plant cells and progeny of the same. “Plant cell,” as used herein includes, without limitation, seeds, suspension cultures, embryos, meristematic regions, callus tissues, leaves, roots, shoots, gametophytes, sporophytes, pollen, and microspores.
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Syngenta Seeds, LLC, C.A. No. 22-1280-RGA, D.I. 72 (D. Del. Aug. 2, 2023).
Seems pretty clear, right?
Not so much, according to the plaintiff. It argued that one of the specification's definitions shouldn't apply to the term as it was used in the claim. Here is the term:
generating a doubled haploid maize plant from said doubled haploid maize embryo cell
Id., D.I. 108 at 13.
In other words, the plaintiff argued that sure, the spec defines "plant" as used in the claims, but the "plant cell" definition shouldn't apply.
Judge Andrews rejected that argument:
Plaintiffs . . . propose using the definition for "plant" but not the one for "plant cell," arguing that applying lexicography for the latter would be confusing. . . . Plaintiffs do not, however, cite any authority for the proposition that courts may apply lexicography for some terms but not others within the same claim.
Id. at 15. The Court found the defendant's citations persuasive:
Defendant also relies on Nestle USA, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., 686 F. App'x 917, 919 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2017), where the Federal Circuit noted, "A patentee cannot partially serve as a lexicographer for a claim term: either the specification includes a binding definition of that term by way of lexicography, or it is to be read consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning." . . . I think Defendant correctly relies upon the footnote, as I believe it correctly describes how lexicography works.
The Court held that both of the patentee's definitions apply to the claim.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
