Defendant Rosen wins over TMI at CAFC

Teva v. Sandoz is cited in TMI Products v. Rosen :


In this case, we review the district court’s claim con-
struction de novo because the intrinsic record fully deter-
mines the proper construction,
and the district court’s construction was not based on
extrinsic evidence. See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
, 574 U.S. _ _, 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015).

A patent is a fully integrated written
instrument and the claims must be read in view of the
specification of which they are a part.
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
A court should also consult the patent’s prosecution history,
which, like the specification, provides evidence of how the
PTO and the inventor understood the claimed invention.
Id.





The outcome


Because we conclude that the district court
did not err in construing claim 1, we
affirm the
grant of
summary
judgment of noninfringement




Defendant Rosen wins.

Drafter's intent is not dispositive:


TMI’s argument focuses on the drafter’s
intent with respect to the
drafting of the original claims, but
intent alone, without further evidence,
does not inform the
construction of claim 1.
See Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc.
, 540 F.3d 1337, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(“We hold that inventor testimony as to the
inventor’s subjective intent is irrelevant
to the issue of claim
construction.”).




Also, no clear disavowal of claim scope
happened in prosecution.