The Federal Circuit Expands Disclaimer of Patent Scope During Prosecution
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Focus Products Group International, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co., Inc., No. 2023-1446 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2025) reversed summary judgment of infringement on two patents and vacated on a third. The Court held the district court erred in both claim construction and application of its infringement analysis by failing to properly find the patent file history disavowed subject matter relied upon to find infringement. The disavowal was critical because the claim language broadly covered the product’s configuration found to be infringing by the district court.

A patent’s claim scope can be narrowed only if the file history contains a “clean and unmistakable” disavowal that overcomes the heavy presumption that claim terms carry their full and ordinary meaning. In practice, that standard has been difficult to meet even when applicant’s arguments overcame prior art and examiner rejections. The accused device in Focus Products was a shower curtain ring with a flat upper edge (shown here). The Federal Circuit relied on several statements by the examiner that the application’s claims covered different species—one for a ring with projections and another for a ring with a “flat upper edge.” The patentee elected to withdraw claims covering a ring with a flat upper edge without objecting to the examiner’s definition. And in the Notice of Allowance, the examiner again stated that a “flat upper edge” fell outside the scope of the applicant’s election and invited the applicant to challenge that designation.
The case law on claim disavowal typically requires the applicant to disclaim subject matter that would otherwise fall within the claim and often admonishes cases finding disclaimer based on examiner statements accompanied only by the applicant’s silence. In Focus Products, the Court considered that the applicant cooperated with the examiner’s exclusion of rings with a flat upper edge and therefore made it clear that it accepted the exclusion.
Having consented to the examiner’s claim narrowing, the patentee could not later in litigation reclaim the coverage of a ring with the flat upper edge even though reading the claims in isolation under their ordinary meaning would cover such a configuration.
The significance of the Federal Circuit’s decision is two-fold. First, it confirms that a patent applicant’s disclaimer during prosecution can occur without the applicant’s explicit and absolute disavowal of claim scope, and can be based on the applicant’s failure to challenge the examiner’s findings and taking actions consistent with those findings.
Second, the holding signifies the Federal Circuit’s easing of the standard to find disclaimer, which in practice has typically been a difficult hurdle even when the file history included arguments distinguishing the prior art to gain allowance, which district courts’ often found not clear and unmistakable to therefore not warranting disclaimer of claim scope.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
The case law on claim disavowal typically requires the applicant to disclaim subject matter that would otherwise fall within the claim and often admonishes cases finding disclaimer based on examiner statements accompanied only by the applicant’s silence. In Focus Products, the Court considered that the applicant cooperated with the examiner’s exclusion of rings with a flat upper edge and therefore made it clear that it accepted the exclusion.
Having consented to the examiner’s claim narrowing, the patentee could not later in litigation reclaim the coverage of a ring with the flat upper edge even though reading the claims in isolation under their ordinary meaning would cover such a configuration.
The significance of the Federal Circuit’s decision is two-fold. First, it confirms that a patent applicant’s disclaimer during prosecution can occur without the applicant’s explicit and absolute disavowal of claim scope, and can be based on the applicant’s failure to challenge the examiner’s findings and taking actions consistent with those findings.
Second, the holding signifies the Federal Circuit’s easing of the standard to find disclaimer, which in practice has typically been a difficult hurdle even when the file history included arguments distinguishing the prior art to gain allowance, which district courts’ often found not clear and unmistakable to therefore not warranting disclaimer of claim scope.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Lawyers
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Focus Products Group International, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co., Inc., No. 2023-1446 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2025) reversed summary judgment of infringement on two patents and vacated on a third. The Court held the district court erred in both claim construction and application of its infringement analysis by failing to properly find the patent file history disavowed subject matter relied upon to find infringement. The disavowal was critical because the claim language broadly covered the product’s configuration found to be infringing by the district court.

A patent’s claim scope can be narrowed only if the file history contains a “clean and unmistakable” disavowal that overcomes the heavy presumption that claim terms carry their full and ordinary meaning. In practice, that standard has been difficult to meet even when applicant’s arguments overcame prior art and examiner rejections. The accused device in Focus Products was a shower curtain ring with a flat upper edge (shown here). The Federal Circuit relied on several statements by the examiner that the application’s claims covered different species—one for a ring with projections and another for a ring with a “flat upper edge.” The patentee elected to withdraw claims covering a ring with a flat upper edge without objecting to the examiner’s definition. And in the Notice of Allowance, the examiner again stated that a “flat upper edge” fell outside the scope of the applicant’s election and invited the applicant to challenge that designation.
The case law on claim disavowal typically requires the applicant to disclaim subject matter that would otherwise fall within the claim and often admonishes cases finding disclaimer based on examiner statements accompanied only by the applicant’s silence. In Focus Products, the Court considered that the applicant cooperated with the examiner’s exclusion of rings with a flat upper edge and therefore made it clear that it accepted the exclusion.
Having consented to the examiner’s claim narrowing, the patentee could not later in litigation reclaim the coverage of a ring with the flat upper edge even though reading the claims in isolation under their ordinary meaning would cover such a configuration.
The significance of the Federal Circuit’s decision is two-fold. First, it confirms that a patent applicant’s disclaimer during prosecution can occur without the applicant’s explicit and absolute disavowal of claim scope, and can be based on the applicant’s failure to challenge the examiner’s findings and taking actions consistent with those findings.
Second, the holding signifies the Federal Circuit’s easing of the standard to find disclaimer, which in practice has typically been a difficult hurdle even when the file history included arguments distinguishing the prior art to gain allowance, which district courts’ often found not clear and unmistakable to therefore not warranting disclaimer of claim scope.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
The case law on claim disavowal typically requires the applicant to disclaim subject matter that would otherwise fall within the claim and often admonishes cases finding disclaimer based on examiner statements accompanied only by the applicant’s silence. In Focus Products, the Court considered that the applicant cooperated with the examiner’s exclusion of rings with a flat upper edge and therefore made it clear that it accepted the exclusion.
Having consented to the examiner’s claim narrowing, the patentee could not later in litigation reclaim the coverage of a ring with the flat upper edge even though reading the claims in isolation under their ordinary meaning would cover such a configuration.
The significance of the Federal Circuit’s decision is two-fold. First, it confirms that a patent applicant’s disclaimer during prosecution can occur without the applicant’s explicit and absolute disavowal of claim scope, and can be based on the applicant’s failure to challenge the examiner’s findings and taking actions consistent with those findings.
Second, the holding signifies the Federal Circuit’s easing of the standard to find disclaimer, which in practice has typically been a difficult hurdle even when the file history included arguments distinguishing the prior art to gain allowance, which district courts’ often found not clear and unmistakable to therefore not warranting disclaimer of claim scope.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Lawyers
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Event
Partner Terri Mascherin to Speak at Illinois State Bar Association Seminar on Negotiation Ethics
On November 11, Partner Terri Mascherin will join a faculty panel for the Illinois State Bar Association (ISBA) continuing legal education (CLE) seminar “Negotiation Ethics: Winning Without Selling Your Soul.”
November 11, 2026
Publications
In Politico, Partner Emily Loeb Discusses How Companies Are Preparing for Congressional Oversight
Partner Emily Loeb was spoke with Politico for a story examining how companies are preparing for heightened congressional oversight, particularly those that could become the focus of investigations centered on affordability and accountability.
October 29, 2026
Recognition
Partner Katie Wynbrandt Named a 2026 Rising Star by The National Law Journal
Partner Katie Wynbrandt has been named a 2026 DC Rising Star in the appellate category by The National Law Journal at its DC Legal Awards.
October 26, 2026
Recognition
Jenner & Block Named Justice Impact Partner at MacArthur Justice Center’s 40th Anniversary Gala
Jenner & Block received the Justice Impact Partner Award at the MacArthur Justice Center’s 40th Anniversary Gala on October 14 in Chicago.
October 23, 2026
Recognition
Partner Adam Unikowsky Named 2026 Appellate Attorney of the Year by The National Law Journal
Partner Adam Unikowsky has been named Appellate Attorney of the Year at The National Law Journal’s 2026 DC Legal Awards.
October 23, 2026
Publications
EPA’s Power Plant Rule Adds to a Predictably Volatile Landscape, Bloomberg Law
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman and Meghan Greenfield authored an article for Bloomberg Law on the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent repeal of most Biden-era greenhouse gas standards for power plants and the litigation that followed.
October 21, 2026