Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 25 MAY 2017

Markush Groups: Traps For The Unwary

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

While many patent examiners prefer Markush claims, which recite lists of alternatively useable species, to be formatted as "selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C," ...

United StatesIntellectual Property

While many patent examiners prefer Markush claims, which recite lists of alternatively useable species, to be formatted as "selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C," Applicants should carefully consider claim construction before adopting this format. "A trap for the unwary claim drafter using Markush group language is the severely closed nature of a Markush group." 3-8 Chisum on Patents § 8.06 (2017).

Unless other language alters the meaning of a Markush clause, courts construe Markush groups as closed. See Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 831 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The presumption that a claim term set off by the transitional phrase 'consisting of' is closed to unrecited elements is at least a century old and has been reaffirmed many times by our court and other courts."). "[T]o overcome the exceptionally strong presumption that a claim term set off with 'consisting of' is closed to unrecited elements,

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from