March 19, 2025
Authored and Edited by Christina Ji-Hye Yang; Erik R. Puknys; *Sebastian Quiroga
In IQRIS Technologies LLC v. Point Blank Enterprises, Inc, No. 2023-2062 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2025), the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,814,567 and 8,256,020, holding that the district court erroneously construed the term “pull cord.”
IQRIS’s patent claims are directed to a quick-release system for tactical vests. The claims recite “pull cord” which the wearer uses to initiate release, but the accused infringing products rely on a trigger mechanism. “Pull cord” was construed to (1) require a user pull on the cord directly and (2) exclude cords with handles. Under this construction, the district court held that no reasonable jury could find the accused products infringe IQRIS’s patents either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. IQRIS appealed.
The Federal Circuit rejected the district court’s construction. The intrinsic record did not support narrowly construing “pull cord” to require direct pulling or to exclude a handle. Although the specification criticized prior art cutaway vests with a handle, it did not disparage the handle per se. So those criticisms did not meet the “exacting” standard requiring clear and unequivocal evidence of disavowal. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded in light of the new construction.
*Sebastian Quiroga is a Law Clerk at Finnegan.
Copyright © 2025 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information
At the PTAB Blog
Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a
§ 325(d) EPR Denial
May 28, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.