[United States] IQRIS Techs v. Point Blank (CAFC, March 2025)
更新日：2 日前
Article information
Article type: Case note
Category: United States
Topics: —
First published on this website: 2026-11-01
Display and classification checked: November 2, 2026
Originally published on Ameblo: 2025-10-06 (Japan time). Full English translation.
[United States] IQRIS Techs v. Point Blank (CAFC, March 2025)
*The district court's summary judgment of non-infringement was vacated and the case remanded.
(1) The claim language provides only that the pull cord is “connected to at least one releasable hook and actuates that hook to release the engagement”; it does not limit who pulls it or how it is pulled. In other words, “pull cord” amounts only to a functional description of “a cord that actuates a releasable hook when pulled,” and a limitation requiring “direct pulling” cannot be read from the language.
(2) The claim language specifies only the pull cord's function (actuating the hook), not its structure (whether it has a handle). The specification's drawings consistently depict a gripping portion, such as a spherical bead, attached to the end of the pull cord and do not suggest that adding a gripping portion negates its character as a pull cord.
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.
