When Is a “Group” Not a Group? Federal Circuit Sends Patent Dispute Back for More Claim Construction

UTTO Inc. v. Metrotech Corp

Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky

A recent decision highlights how the meaning of just one word in a patent claim can make or break an infringement lawsuit. UTTO Inc. owns U.S. Patent No. 9,086,441, which covers methods for detecting underground utility lines using a mobile device and a “group of buried asset data points.” UTTO sued competitor Metrotech Corp., claiming Metrotech’s locator device infringed its patent. But the trial court dismissed the case, deciding that the patent required “two or more” data points for each asset, while Metrotech’s device worked with just one at a time.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit said the lower court was too quick to decide what “group” means in this context. While “group” usually means more than one, the court noted that the patent’s description sometimes refers to “one or more” data points, and the technical field might use “group” differently. The court also pointed out that the patent’s examples and figures could support either side’s reading, and that more evidence and analysis were needed before making a final decision.

The Federal Circuit sent the patent part of the case back to the district court for a deeper look at the claim language, the patent’s description, and possibly expert testimony. The court emphasized that claim construction—figuring out what the patent actually covers—sometimes requires more than just reading the words. It can involve technical context, industry usage, and even extrinsic evidence, especially when the meaning isn’t crystal clear.

However, UTTO’s separate claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage under California law did not fare as well. The court affirmed dismissal of that claim, finding UTTO failed to allege enough facts to show Metrotech’s conduct was independently wrongful or that it had the necessary market power for an antitrust violation. This case is a reminder that the smallest details in patent language can have a big impact—and that courts are willing to take a closer look when the meaning isn’t obvious.