Ghaly v. Hasbro – Re-mix
Ghaly has asked the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for a rehearing based on perceived errors in its prior ruling on the case. Rehearings are rarely granted. However, in this case, Ghaly may have a point.
Ghaly’s patent claims an “entry control means” limitation. A major bone of contention is whether the control means is limited to bi-stable switches (Hasbro’s position) or include momentary switches (Ghaly’s position). In its initial decision, the CAFC sided with Hasbro, finding that the disclosure limited the claim to bi-stable switches.
However, Ghaly raises two interesting points in his petition to rehear: 1) In its opinion, the CAFC defined momentary switches to be “like keys on a keyboard [that] revert to their original status the moment a user stops pressing on them.” 2) In the dependent claims, Ghaly disclosed that the “entry control means” could be a “key pad switch.” Ergo, argues Ghaly, a key pad switch is a momentary switch.
Ghaly does not cite any cases directly on point, and thus raises the following legal question:
Should means-plus-function language be interpreted in light of the claims as well as the body of the specification?
Hasbro’s counsel, Tony Sitko disagrees with Ghaly’s interpretation of the case. He noted that “Hasbro thinks that the Court’s opinion speaks for itself, and quite frankly, that the Court got it right.”