[U.S. Patents] UTTO v. Metrotech (October 2024, CAFC)
Updated: 6 hours ago
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: United States
Topics: Claim interpretation
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-04-04 (Japan time). Full English translation.
[U.S. Patents] UTTO v. Metrotech (October 2024, CAFC)
Plural claim language is presumed to mean more than one, but the presumption is overcome if the specification indicates a different meaning.
⇒ The district court construed “group of buried asset data points” to require “two or more” data points. In light of passages in the specification referring to “one or more” data points and other issues requiring further examination, the CAFC vacated the dismissal of the patent-infringement claim and remanded for further claim-construction proceedings. It did not decide whether the district court’s construction was correct or establish that the defendant’s product infringed.
Translator’s notes (editorial)
The party name has been corrected to “Metrotech” in accordance with the official CAFC opinion.
The summary has been corrected to distinguish the district court’s construction from the CAFC’s remand for further claim-construction proceedings; the CAFC did not decide whether that construction was correct.
Update history
The first-published date remains unchanged. Display maintenance, classification changes, related-article updates, and text corrections are recorded separately.
November 1, 2026: First published on this website.
November 2, 2026: Added article information, classification, topics, language navigation, related articles where the same case was confirmed, consultation guidance, and SEO. The original text and first-published date were preserved.
Comments