Applying the Rationales of Patent Claim Construction Doctrines to Interpretation of Patent Statutes

Authors

Grace Pak

Abstract

Statutory construction is often determinative in lawsuits. In that vein, which theory of statutory construction a court chooses to employ-whether textualism, intentionalism, or purposivism-is decidedly influential. This note argues that strict adherence to textualism in interpreting patent statutes leads to unsound results, while applying purposivism leads to sound results. To demonstrate, this note walks through the Supreme Court's textual approach in interpreting 35 U.S.C. § 271(0 in Microsoft v. AT&T, and contrasts that with the Federal Circuit's purposivist approach in interpreting the same statute. This note argues that the Federal Circuit's purposivist approach is more appropriate because it more closely matches the rationales used in interpreting patent claims in patent law. An analysis of patent claim construction doctrines reveals that these doctrines can be used to interpret patent law. This note applies the rationales of claim construction doctrines to interpretation of patent statutes, to conclude that purposivism is the best approach to interpreting patent statutes.

Recommended Citation

Grace Pak, Applying the Rationales of Patent Claim Construction Doctrines to Interpretation of Patent Statutes, 32 UC Law SF Comm. & Ent. L.J. 303 (2010).
Available at: https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_comm_ent_law_journal/vol32/iss2/4