Court Ruled Air Lift Patent Terms Need No Construction

A federal court rejected a request to narrow patent claims held by the suspension system manufacturer.

Updated on Sept. 22, 2026 in Law

Isometric editorial illustration of a single steel industrial suspension spring on a plain background, representing technical patent clarity. — A federal court ruled that patent terms in Air Lift's U.S. Patent No. 9,440,506 require no further construction, maintaining their plain and ordinary meaning. AI Illustration. Upload story photo >

Live Poll

Should courts prioritize plain language over technical definitions in patent infringement lawsuits?

A federal court ruled that five terms in Air Lift's U.S. Patent No. 9,440,506 require no construction, as they hold their plain and ordinary meaning. The decision follows a request from Bag Riders LLC to limit the scope of the patent claims.

Why it matters

The ruling underscores the importance of the intrinsic record in patent litigation, as the court determined that the terms were sufficiently clear for a jury to understand without further guidance. By rejecting the proposed limitations, the court upheld the current breadth of the patent held by Air Lift.

The dispute involved the interpretation of five specific terms found within U.S. Patent No. 9,440,506. The court determined these terms are capable of being understood by most people without specialized assistance.

The players

Air Lift

Air Lift is a manufacturer of air-suspension systems that holds U.S. Patent No. 9,440,506.

Bag Riders LLC

Bag Riders LLC is a former authorized distributor of Air Lift products that challenged the patent terms.

The details

The court reviewed the intrinsic record and found no evidence that Air Lift intended for the patent terms to deviate from their ordinary meaning. Consequently, the court denied the request from former authorized distributor Bag Riders LLC to narrow the claims.

September 22, 2026: The Court issued the ruling on claim construction.

Political Context

The ruling follows the established Markman hearing process where courts define the scope of patent claims prior to trial. Critics of broad patent claims often argue that such procedures grant companies undue control over standard industry terminology.

This decision preserves the current intellectual property boundaries held by Air Lift, preventing competitors from narrowing the company's patent scope. For the average consumer, this maintains the existing competitive landscape for specialized air-suspension products.

The takeaway

This ruling highlights the high burden of proof required to force a deviation from the plain meaning of patent language. Companies should ensure their technical documentation remains precise to avoid costly legal interpretations of their claims.