Claim Construction

News & Analysis as of

PTAB Does Not Rely on District Court’s Markman Decision in Construing Claim Terms

SAP America, Inc. v. Arunachalam - Addressing allegations of impropriety of district court judges that purportedly led to a “tainted” claim construction ruling, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and...more

PTAB Follows District Court’s Claim Construction

November 10, 2014 – In construing a term in a claim of an expired patent, the PTAB followed the district court in adopting the petitioner’s proposed construction. ...more

Interval Licensing: Determining Indefiniteness Post-Nautilus

The Supreme Court’s decision in Nautilus1 is considered by many as a significant development for accused infringers asserting indefiniteness. The decision is viewed as relaxing the standard thereby making it easier for...more

Ornamental Feature of Claim Given No Patentable Weight by PTAB in Obviousness Analysis

Not all claim limitations are treated equally. In Crocs, Inc. v. Polliwalks, Inc., IPR2014-00424, involving US Pat. No. 8,613,148, the Board addressed an argument for patentability based on an ornamental feature found in the...more

Design Patent Case Digest: Weber-Stephen Products LLC v. Sears Holding Corporation

Decision Date: October 20, 2014 - Court: Northern District of Illinois - Patents: D564,834 and D609,045 - Holding: Defendants’ proposed claim construction is REJECTED - Opinion: Plaintiff...more

Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB [Video]

The PTAB is beginning to develop a reputation as being harsh towards patent owners and the validity of their patents. Why have patent owners struggled so much before the PTAB? Attorneys Seth Northrop and Cyrus Morton discuss...more

PTAB Update -- Is "Broadest Reasonable Interpretation" the Appropriate Standard?

One of the more controversial rules concerning PTAB trials promulgated by the USPTO in the wake of the America Invents Act was the adoption of the "broadest reasonable interpretation" ("BRI") claim construction standard for...more

Dissents and Concurrences Popping up in IPR Proceedings

The PTAB has been remarkably consistent to date in its decisions regarding the variety of issues in inter partes review practice. Issues both simple and complex have typically been resolved by one panel and future panels,...more

Oral Argument In Teva Pharmaceuticals: Supreme Court To Decide Federal Circuit’s Standard Of Review Of District Court Claim...

On October 15, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (No. 13-854). The issue presented in the case is “Whether a district court’s factual finding in support of its...more

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Appellate Standard of Review Over Patent Claim Construction

The United States Supreme Court heard oral argument October 15, 2014, in Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854. (The transcript and audio recording are available here.) The question before the Court in this case...more

Supreme Court: Should Appeal Give Deference to Lower Courts on Claim Construction?

On October 15, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al. v. Sandoz Inc., et al., case number 13-854. At issue is the level of deference that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit...more

Teva v. Sandoz -- Is Deferential Review a Boon for Patent Trolls?

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. case to determine whether appellate courts should afford any deference to a trial court's claim construction...more

Board Disagrees with Claim Construction of Prior Proceeding Before the PTO

One of the more disheartening trends to Patent Owners in inter partes review proceedings is the strong willingness of the PTAB to give little or no deference to prior Patent Office proceedings relative to the patent-at-issue....more

Claim Construction Clarified, Not Changed, Post-Verdict

Mformation Technologies v. Research In Motion - Addressing whether a district court’s post-verdict ruling on judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) constituted an improper change in claim construction, the U.S. Court of...more

Teva v. Sandoz -- Supreme Court Preview

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. case to determine whether appellate courts should afford any deference to a trial court's claim construction...more

Teva v. Sandoz Puts Patent Claim Construction in the Spotlight—Again

On October 15, 2014, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. The case involves claims regarding generic versions of Teva’s multiple sclerosis drug, Copaxone®. The...more

Federal Circuit Schedules Argument for First IPR Final Written Decision – In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC

As we have been reporting, the U.S. Patent Office has requested comments on the trial proceedings under the America Invents Act. Out of the 17 issues outlined, the Office highlighted two for which it would especially...more

Federal Circuit Review - September 2014

Misrepresentation Regarding Prior Art Lead to Inequitable Conduct - In APOTEX INC. v. UCB, INC., Appeal No. 2013-1674, the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of inequitable conduct. Apotex sued UCB for patent...more

IP Newsflash - September 2014 #2

Airline Rewards Conversion Method Invalid Under Alice and Bilski - On September 2, 2014, Federal Circuit Judge William Bryson, sitting by designation in the Eastern District of Texas, ruled that two patents on a...more

Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)

In a not particularly well-written opinion that breaks no new ground, the Federal Circuit considered a consolidated appeal of two patents directed to methods of promoting hair growth, including, in particular, eyelash hair...more

Judge McMahon issues claim construction unconstrained by two courts’ prior constructions

Judge McMahon construed terms of U.S. Patent No. 7,346,156 (“Methods and apparatuses for placing a telephone call”). The patent had previously been construed in Stanacard, LLC v. Rebtel Networks, AB, 680 F. Supp. 2d 483...more

Ongoing Developments in Patent Law: Claim Construction on Appeal, Indefiniteness, and PTAB Decisions

There are a few patent cases to keep track of in the future that may have an impact on claim construction, indefiniteness, and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions. ...more

Patent Expiry During IPR Means Phillips, not BRI, Applies

We previously discussed one Patent Owner’s attempt to avoid the “broadest reasonable interpretation” (BRI) claim construction standard by disclaiming the remainder of the patent-at-issue’s term. While some uncertainty about...more

More Details, Details

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Affinity Labs of Texas, IPR2014-01184, Paper 3, IPR2014-01182, Paper 3, IPR2014-01181, Paper 3, August 5, 2014), the Board granted the Petition a filing date, but gave the petitioner five...more

Supreme Court's Decision on Indefiniteness Constitutes Basis to Reconsider Prior Claim Construction Order But Does Not Result in...

In this patent infringement action, Defendant Lighthouse Photonics Corporation's ("Lighthouse") moved to reconsider the Court's Claim Construction Order. Lighthouse argued three reasons for reconsideration: "first, Newport...more

160 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 7