News & Analysis as of

Prior Art Claim Construction Indefiniteness

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | March 2024

Knobbe Martens on

Defining Indefiniteness: When Are Claim Limitations Contradictory? In Maxell, Ltd., v. Amperex Technology Limited, Appeal No. 23-1194, the Federal Circuit held that  two claim limitations are not contradictory if they...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Establishing Indefiniteness Requires More Than Identifying “Unanswered Questions”

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court finding of indefiniteness for focusing solely on the language of the claims and ignoring the specification and prosecution history. Nature Simulation...more

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

Indefiniteness Does Not Necessarily End PTAB’s Patentability Inquiry

On December 28, in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may not decline to consider the patentability of a claim challenged in an inter partes review (IPR)...more

Goodwin

ITC 337 Quarterly Insider Q2 2020

Goodwin on

Goodwin’s 337 Quarterly Insider remains the premiere publicly available source for keeping up to date on all meaningful decisions coming out of the Commission. Please find below Goodwin’s insights on the months of April, May,...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - February 2020

Knobbe Martens on

PTAB May Not Cancel Claims on the Grounds of Indefiniteness in an IPR Proceeding - In Samsung Electronics America v. Prisua Engineering Corp., Appeal No. 19-1169, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal...more

Knobbe Martens

PTAB May Not Cancel Claims on the Grounds of Indefiniteness in an IPR Proceeding

Knobbe Martens on

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA v. PRISUA ENGINEERING CORP. Before Prost, Newman, and Bryson. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may not cancel claims on the...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

The Risk of Using “Consisting Essentially of” in Patent Claims

The legal meaning of the transition language “consisting essentially of” is well-established in Federal Circuit case law and is generally construed to mean that the composition or formulation (a) necessarily includes the...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

“Addressing Video Game Claims Under the Phillips Standard at the PTAB”

Last fall, the PTAB modified its procedures for IPR claim construction, eliminating the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Since the rule change last year, companies challenging the validity of patents at...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

PTAB Strategies and Insights - May 2019: Court's Infringement Indefiniteness Does Not Dictate Validity Indefiniteness at PTAB

In IPR2018-00272, the Board denied a motion to terminate brought by a Patent Owner who argued that a district court’s finding of indefiniteness required termination of the PTAB proceedings for U.S. Patent. 9,393,208....more

Foley & Lardner LLP

District Court Finds PK Targets Of VIMOVO Patents Indefinite

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In an opinion issued November 19, 2018, Judge Chesler of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey found two Orange Book-listed patents for VIMOVO® invalid for indefiniteness in the way certain pharmacokinetic...more

Jones Day

After SAS, Indefinite Claims Can Be A Definite Problem For IPR Petitioners

Jones Day on

The definiteness requirement for patent claims is set forth in Section 112(b), mandating that a patent specification conclude with one or more claims “particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming subject matter which the...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - March 2018

Knobbe Martens on

Distribution Agreements Can Constitute Offers for Sale Under Section 102(b) - In The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2014-1469, 2014-1504, the Federal Circuit held that a distribution agreement qualified as...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - November 2017

Knobbe Martens on

Fractured Federal Circuit Holds Patent Owner Does Not Bear Burden of Persuasion in IPR Motions to Amend - In Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, Appeal No. 2015-1177, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, held that a patent...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

2017 Supreme Court and Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit, With Some Significant Cases from 2016

Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | February 2016

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Dismisses an Appeal of an Inter Partes Reexamination for Lack of Standing Where the Appellant Failed to Establish that it was the Successor-in-Interest to the Original Petitioner - In Agilent...more

McDermott Will & Emery

PTAB Denies Institution Where Claim Indefiniteness Precludes Application of Prior Art to the Claims

McDermott Will & Emery on

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR) after determining that the challenged claims were indefinite and that therefore the Board could not apply the prior art to...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | April 2015

Knobbe Martens on

No Recovery Of Lost Profits From Related Companies’ Activities - In WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. v. NUVASIVE, INC., Appeal Nos. 2013-1576, -1577, the Federal Circuit held that a company was not entitled to lost profits based...more

17 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide