“It’s only words, and words are all I have to take your heart away"
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at [email protected].
This post originally appeared at Greenspoon Marder’s Intellectual Property blog.
As a lawyer that practices patent law, I am often reminded of the “it’s only words” refrain from the Bee Gees song “Words.” This is odd, and potentially treacherous, for several reasons. First, just like admitting you will vote for Trump is decried by the political establishment intelligencia, admitting that you are a fan of the Bee Gees invites scorn from many “serious” musicians or “classic rock & roll” fans (I grew up a Led Zeppelin fan, not a Bee Gees fan – I swear, I swear).
Second, one should not be distracted by the pedestrian lyrics of such a simple song when trying to understand the complexities and intricacies of a genius mind (the inventor) captured in the four corners of the patent document.
Third, when performing a utility patent claim construction analysis, rather than “take my heart away,” we need to understand those words in the much broader context of patent eligibility and patentability (utility, novelty and non-obviousness) and potential patent infringement: a utility patent’s validity, and infringement.
Nevertheless, we are constrained by the words of the patent document when called upon to interpret what it is that the inventor had in mind with his/her invention. And, when it is time to convey that meaning to a Judge or Jury of our peers (i.e., laypersons), we once again must rely upon the essential tool of the trade: the words in the four corners of the patent document. However, and this is where the patent lawyer, Judge and Jury dilemma comes in, we must rely upon the meaning of those words as understood or intended by the inventor at the time of his/her invention by, you guessed it, other words.
So when interpreting patent claims, rather than allowing the words to “take your heart away,” employ the following approach:
1. In spite of the abundance of words that appear in the patent specification (which must be relied upon to inform the meaning of the words in the claims), avoid the feeling that the inventor is just trying to “Ramble On.”
2. Avoid your own Monday morning quarterbacking (realizing that the words should be interpreted as understood at the time of the application). So, do not apply today’s standards of “What Is And What Should Never Be.”
3. Make sure that you are able to fluently convey the claim construction in a clear, concise, and credible way so as to avoid any “Communication Breakdown.”
4. If you find that you, or the Judge, or Jury might be “Dazed and Confused” by the patent specification, employ an expert to assist in the process.
5. Always remember to review the file history of the patent and its family to confirm that there is no file history estoppel “Heartbreaker.”
6. Think of your claim construction as a journey, taken one word at a time, as you climb the “Stairway to Heaven.”
7. Succeed at your Markman Claim Construction Hearing and your client will likely display their joy with a “Whole Lotta Love.”
8. Win the infringement battle with your successful claim construction, and your client will shower you with an overwhelmingly enthusiastic “Thank You” (until they receive your bill).
Partner, Patrick Doerr
Mr. Rando has represented clients in matters involving computer hardware and software, silicon chip manufacturing, biotechnology, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, chemical compounds, food additives, alternative energy, AI, autonomous vehicles, blockchain, consumer electronics, communications, internet, and e-commerce. He has appeared in courts across the country, including the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and multiple U.S. Courts of Appeals.
As appellate counsel, Mr. Rando has served as counsel of record or co-counsel in more than 30 amicus briefs filed before the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit on issues of patent law, statutory interpretation, separation of powers, and constitutional law. Noteworthy filings include eBay Inc. v. MercExchange (2006), Oil States v. Greene’s Energy (2017), American Axle v. Neapco (2021), Amgen v. Sanofi (2023), and Cellect v. Vidal (2024).
Mr. Rando is a Fellow of the Academy of Court-Appointed Masters, having served by judicial appointment as Special Master in numerous complex patent cases, including multi-day Markman hearings and post-discovery proceedings. He also serves as a court-appointed Mediator and Neutral in both patent and commercial disputes.
He has played an active role in judicial and legislative engagement. Mr. Rando co-developed and conducted lecture series for the SDNY and EDNY Patent Pilot Program Judges and Clerks, covering the America Invents Act and Section 101 eligibility post-Alice and Mayo. He represented both the Federal Bar Association (FBA) and New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA) at the Tillis/Coons Section 101 Patent Reform Roundtable, and submitted written testimony to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in 2019.
Mr. Rando is a former president of the NYIPLA (2023–2024) and has held nearly every leadership position in the organization. He also served as Chair of the FBA’s Intellectual Property Law Section and was a founding member and president of the FBA’s EDNY Chapter. He is a founding member of the Association of Amicus Counsel, and an active contributor to the Federalist Society IP Practice Group Executive Committee.
He frequently lectures at CLE programs, universities, and legal associations on IP, constitutional law, and appellate advocacy. He has been quoted extensively in publications such as Law360, Bloomberg Law, WIPR, and National Law Journal. His scholarly publications include articles in The Federal Lawyer, Touro Law Review, and IPWatchdog.