Election In Response To Ambiguous Restriction Requirement Does Not Relinquish Claim Scope

Addressing the disavowal of claim scope by an election in response to a restriction requirement where the examiner provided no guidance regarding the differences by which he distinguished the patentably distinct inventions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a district court's summary judgment of no infringement, holding that an election in response to such a restriction requirement does not amount to a clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope. Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., Case No. 12-1355 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2013) (Wallach, J.) The Federal Circuit also overturned the district court's grant of summary judgment of obviousness, finding that the lower court improperly concluded the patent was invalid as obvious before considering objective indicia of non-obviousness.