By Intellectual Property Attorneys Scott Daniels and Andrew Harry
Federal Circuit decisions continue to underscore a core principle of patent law: claim wording choices matter, often more than drafters expect. Across multiple cases decided in 2025 and early 2026, the court has relied on preambles, punctuation, grammar, and the ordinary meaning of common words to resolve claim construction disputes with dispositive consequences for infringement and validity.
Together, these decisions offer practical guidance for drafters seeking to avoid unintentional limitations and preserve enforcement flexibility.
When a Preamble Becomes a Limitation
In Leading Technology Composites, Inc. v. MV2, LLC, No. 2024-2056 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2026) (nonprecedential), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement, holding that a claim preamble can limit claim scope when it is tied to the invention’s core purpose.
The asserted claim of the U.S. Patent No. 8,551,598, began with the preamble:
“An armoring panel for resisting edge impact penetrations by ballistic projectiles.”
Both parties initially agreed that the preamble was limiting. After ex parte reexamination in which the claim was amended, LTC reversed course at summary judgment, arguing only “An armoring panel” was limiting and the rest merely recited intended use. The court rejected this revised reading. The specification emphasized that prior-art armor panels were vulnerable at their edges, and that solving this problem was the invention’s central objective. Because the preamble provided the “life, meaning, and vitality” of the claimed invention, the Federal Circuit concluded that the entire preamble was limiting.
Practice Tip
Avoid embedding performance requirements into preambles unless you intend to prove them. If the specification frames the invention around solving a particular problem, purpose-driven preamble language is likely to limit claim scope and may impose demanding proof obligations during enforcement.
Claim Construction Quote Box
The preamble was necessary to give “life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.”
Under the court’s construction, the phrase “for resisting edge impact penetrations” required that the panel’s edge protection resist ballistic impacts at a level comparable to the panel’s mid-panel resistance. The patentee failed to meet that burden, and summary judgment of non-infringement was affirmed.
Punctuation, Modifiers, and the “Nearest Reasonable Referent”
In Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, No. 2024-1541 (Feb. 13, 2026), the Federal Circuit reversed a PTAB IPR claim construction, illustrating how the placement of a single modifying phrase can shape claim scope and affect patent validity.
The disputed claim recited encryption information identifying “encrypted portions of frames of video within the requested portions of the selected stream.” The patentee argued that the modifier applied to the encryption information itself. The challenger argued it applied to the encrypted portions of video frames.
Applying the “nearest reasonable referent” canon of grammar, the Federal Circuit agreed with the challenger. Grammatically, the modifier most naturally applied to “encrypted portions of frames of video,” not “encryption information.”
Practice Tip
Do not rely on hoped-for grammatical interpretations. If a modifier is critical to claim scope, place it immediately next to the term it modifies, or rewrite the limitation entirely to eliminate doubt.
The specification reinforced this construction, disclosing embodiments where encryption information was stored in a separate top-level index file outside the stream. The prosecution history further supported Netflix’s reading, prompting the court to vacate and remand the PTAB decision for reconsideration under the corrected construction.
Key Takeaway
The court applied the “nearest reasonable referent” canon, presuming modifiers attach to the closest plausible noun.
When Claim Language Suggests Step Ordering
In Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2024-1092 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2026) (precedential), the Federal Circuit addressed whether a method claim implicitly required steps to be performed in a particular sequence. The court affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement, holding that claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,708,213 required its first two steps in a specific order. The ’213 patent covered streaming-media systems using intermediate “helper servers.”
Although the claim did not expressly recite an order, it did recite (1) receiving a request for an object and (2) allocating a buffer to cache the “requested” object. The court treated “requested” as a status indicator, meaning that the requesting step must already have occurred.
Practice Tip
Past-tense modifiers create a sequence of steps. Terms like “requested,” “received,” or “processed” can silently impose mandatory ordering, even without explicit wording such as “before” or “after.”
The Federal Circuit clarified that the test is not physical impossibility but whether grammar or logic creates an inherent order of steps.
Key Takeaway
“Requested” functions as a grammatical and logical constraint requiring the request to occur first.
Common Words Can Expand or Save Claim Scope
Finally, HC Robotics v. International Trade Commission, No. 2024-1193 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2025) (nonprecedential) shows how everyday claim language can be interpreted expansively.
In a Section 337 investigation brought by OPEX Corporation, the ITC found HC Robotics’ Omnisort Gen 2 robotic delivery system infringed OPEX’s material-handling patents. The disputed word was “between,” used to describe a robot vehicle’s position relative to two columns. Rejecting a narrow interpretation, the Federal Circuit used a “lettuce in a sandwich” analogy to explain that “between” can extend beyond the immediate physical gap and still satisfy the claim, because the term encompasses the entire imaginary planes defined by the columns rather than the confined space between them. For example, the panel observed that a passenger flying “between New York and Chicago” is plainly between the two cities even when not on a straight-line path, and that a fan sitting “between first and home plate” at a baseball game is obviously not perched on the foul line connecting them.
Practice Tip
Assume common words will be read broadly unless you define them in the specification.
If a spatial or relational term must be confined to a particular geometry, say so explicitly in the claim or specification.
Conclusion
Across these decisions, the Federal Circuit reaffirms a consistent lesson: drafting choices control outcomes. Preambles may limit, modifiers may redirect scope, grammar may impose step ordering, and ordinary words may span more territory than anticipated.
Thoughtful drafting, guided by how courts actually construe claims, remains one of the most effective tools for reducing litigation risk and preserving enforceable patent rights.
