Claim Construction

News & Analysis as of

Request For Attorneys’ Fees Is Denied

The disputed technology relates to an apparatus for performing computer assisted microsurgery. The court previously found all asserted claims invalid for indefiniteness after a claim construction hearing. The parties...more

Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Shire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court's claim construction and determination that claim terms were not indefinite in Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Shire Pharmaceuticals, Inc....more

BioPharma Patents Quick Tips & News – October 2016

October 2016 BioPharma Newsletter — Halloween Edition - U.S. patent eligibility can be scary! Tips to avoid the Grim Reaper (a.k.a. the Examiner or a Judge) killing your claims:  Bonus tip: This strategy works even...more

Disavowal By Description, Disparagement, and Argument Limit Claims

In Poly America, LP v. API Industries, Inc., [2016-1200] (October 14, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s construction of “short seal” in the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,702,308 to require that such seals...more

Practical Implications from the Federal Circuit’s Rare en Banc Reversal in Apple v. Samsung

In a precedential opinion issued en banc on Friday, October 7, 2016, the Federal Circuit overturned a panel decision, affirming and reinstating the district court’s judgment and the jury’s verdict. The majority opinion...more

Judge Oetken Holds that Amendments Made During Ex Parte Reexamination Are not Effective Until Grant of Reissue Patent

On September 26, 2016, District Judge Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) denied defendant Jay Franco & Sons’ (“Franco”) motion to dismiss, granted plaintiff Infinity Headwear & Apparel’s (“Infinity”) motion for leave to amend to assert...more

Internal Fight Over Role of Appellate Court Reveals Substantial Difference of Opinion over Substantial Evidence at Federal Circuit

In Apple, Inc., v. Samsung Electronics Co., Inc., [2015-1171, 2015-1195, 2015-1994] (October 7, 2016), the en banc Federal Circuit completely undid the panel decision with respect to three patents, with the three original...more

Anything You Say Can and Will be Used Against You in a Court of Law

Consistent with the Miranda warning that anything you say can (and will) be used against you in a court of law, the Federal Circuit looks to every part of a patent when construing the claims — including the lowly abstract. ...more

PTO Must Apply Phillips Standard when Construing Expired Patents **WEB ONLY**

In an opinion addressing the standard for claim construction of a patent that expires during reexamination, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s or Board’s)...more

Federal Circuit Review | September 2016

Claims Directed to Monitoring and Analyzing Data Held to Be Invalid under § 101 - In Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., Appeal No. 2015-1778, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s grant of summary...more

Once Again, Written Description Does Not Limit Claim Scope **WEB ONLY**

Addressing the interplay between the written description and claim construction, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court, finding that the specification did not clearly limit the scope of...more

Army Ammunition Goes Green and Infringement Free

In a patent infringement action against the US Army for its use of lead-free “green bullets,” the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the trial court erred in broadly construing a term of degree and the...more

Unwrapping the Meaning of Markush Group Language

Addressing issues of claim construction for a Markush group, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed-in-part a district court “closed” Markush group claim construction and vacated its summary judgment of...more

PTAB Refusal to Permit Claim Amendments Remanded

Addressing the standard for granting a motion to amend claims in inter partes review (IPR), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected a conclusion by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) that the...more

Claim Differentiation Doctrine Does Not Overcome Construction Dictated by Written Description or Prosecution History **WEB ONLY**

Addressing the application of the claim differentiation doctrine in claim construction, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s construction, finding that the doctrine of claim...more

Exclusive Recitation of Specific Device in Specification Limits Claim Term

Addressing issues of claim construction, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a limiting construction of a claim term where the specification exclusively used the disputed term in the limited fashion. GPNE...more

Friday Musings: Newton’s Laws of Claim Construction

When you stop and think about it, Newton’s Laws can be applied to the all-important issue of claim construction. Newton’s First Law of Claim Construction: A term in a claim has its ordinary meaning to a person skill in...more


§112(f) allows a patent applicant to claim an element by the function it performs. Functionally claimed elements using §112(f), however, are limited to what is disclosed in the specification and equivalents. The classic...more

Function Claim Language Shows That Claims are Directed to Abstract Idea, Not a Concrete Technical Innovation

In Affinity Labs of Texas v., Inc., [2015-2080] (September 23, 2016) the Federal Circuit affirmed judgment on the pleadings that U.S. Patent No. 8,688,085 on a System and Method to Communicate Targeted Information...more

Federal Circuit Provides Additional Support to Software Patents

The federal circuit recently reversed a decision in McRO, Inc. v. DBA Planet Blue that asserted claims in patents at issue, relating to a method for automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expression of...more

Korea Quarterly - September 2016

Controlling Costs in International Arbitration - Arbitration is an efficient means for resolving business disputes because it offers more flexibility than court proceedings and enables the parties to choose arbitrators...more

Substantial Evidence Supported Infringement of Limitations That Did Not Need Construction

In Lifenet Health v. Lifecell Corporation, [2015-1549](September 16, 2016) the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,569,200 on plasticized soft tissue grafts suitable for...more

Ten Common Intellectual Property Mistakes

Mistake No. 1 - Not Obtaining an Obligation to Assign Inventions From Employees and Contractor - Example: Employee/contractor agreements do not: (a) assign rights to you in inventions made for you; (b) require the...more

Federal Circuit Overturns PTAB Denial of Motion to Amend Claims in IPR Proceeding

Veritas Technologies LLC v. Veeam Software Corp., No. 2015-1894 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, 2016). On recurring controversy in AIA trials is the difficulty patent owners face meeting the PTAB’s strict requirements for amending...more

A legal look at Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions and trends: Shaving Patents Avoid IPR by a Whisker

Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings are limited to prior art challenges for printed prior art. Although prior art typically includes drawings that illustrate physical structures, the description of those drawings may only...more

747 Results
View per page
Page: of 30
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"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:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.