Configured Expectations

“Configured to” has long occupied familiar, comfortable territory in patent drafting—a dependable way to add functional characteristics while maintaining the structural nature of the claim. The phrase offers flexibility and has often been treated as a relatively reliable choice when balancing claim scope against downstream patent risk.

A recent Federal Circuit decision, In re Blue Buffalo Enterprises, Inc., No. 2024‑1611 (Jan. 14, 2026) (nonprecedential), merits attention for what it suggests about those settled expectations. The decision does not announce a doctrinal overhaul, nor has it sparked noticeable controversy in the months following. Still, viewed against the historical treatment of similar claim language, it represents a caveat that may warrant portfolio review by companies building or assessing patent assets based on the assumption that certain claim formulations carry predictable risk profiles.

In Blue Buffalo, the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB obviousness rejection and construed “configured to” and “configured for” to mean “capable of,” rather than “specifically designed to.” In earlier cases traditionally cited in this area—notably Aspex Eyewear and In re Giannelli—the intrinsic record supported a narrower, design‑based interpretation of functional language. The record in Blue Buffalo did not. Absent intrinsic evidence signaling a more demanding meaning, the court treated “configured to” as broad functional language, effectively collapsing the analysis into capability rather than design.

The significance of this distinction lies in how patent strength is understood and valued internally. Functional claim language is often used not to stretch infringement theories, but as a comparatively predictable hedge when tested against prior art. Blue Buffalo suggests that this margin of confidence may be thinner than assumed—particularly where claims rely on functional language without meaningful structural or contextual anchors.

From a portfolio‑management perspective, Blue Buffalo serves as a timely prompt for patent owners to revisit certain claim coverage traditionally viewed as well understood, and to do so before those patents are tested in adversarial settings.

“Here, Blue Buffalo points to nothing in the claims or written description suggesting that ‘configured to’ should be construed more narrowly than ‘capable of.’”