Dan Bagatell was quoted in the Law360 article, “Patent Holder Faces Uphill Google Fight At Fed Circ.,” regarding Google’s appeal of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision regarding media search patents.

Google countered on Monday, however, that the proper standard that applies here is a finding on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms, and the company contends its broader interpretation is indeed reasonable. There are multiple possible interpretations, “and not much to go on beyond the claim language,” said Google attorney Dan L. Bagatell, who argued that neither exhaustive nor non-exhaustive actually appear in the specification and were only brought up in the middle of the litigation.

“Exhaustive means to go through completely. To use up entirely,” he said. Here, it means searching for every possible match, he argued.

Neither the extrinsic nor intrinsic evidence undercuts those arguments, Bagatell said Monday, who argued that the possibility of near matches means you have to check everything. Nor does it matter that the PTAB didn’t credit Google’s expert, he said, because of the possibility of multiple interpretations and nothing that he said rules out the company’s broader and still “reasonable” reading.

The Federal Circuit should remand the case back to the PTAB for another look, Bagatell said.