Today in David Netzer Consulting Engineer LLC v. Shell Oil Co., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. 2016)(Lourie, J.), in the course of affirming a noninfringement ruling, the panel provides an explanation of the scope of a claim with an open (“comprising”) transition:

Citing Dippin’ Dots, Inc. v. Mosey, 476 F.3d 1337, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the panel explains that “[i]t is true that a method claim with the word ‘comprising’ appearing at the beginning generally allows for additional, unclaimed steps in the accused process, but each claimed step must nevertheless be performed as written.”