Category Archives: Claim Differentiation

DC erroneously constructed “antibody” and “antibody fragment”, FC panel finds

Posted on September 9, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Baxalta, Inc. et al. v. Genentech, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1527MOORE, PLAGER, WALLACH August 27, 2020 Brief Summary:  DC non-infringement finding vacated and remanded due to erroneous construction of “antibody” and “antibody fragment”. Summary:    Baxalta appealed DC judgment based … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Disclosed algorithm found to provide sufficient support for mean-plus-function claim term

Posted on February 3, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Intelligent Automation Design, LLC v. Zimmer Biomet CMF et al. Docket No. 2019-1100 PROST, WALLACH, HUGHES January 30, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC determination of means-plus-function construction affirmed but reversed as to whether sufficient structure was disclosed. Summary: IAD appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Means-plus-function, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

RealTime Data, LLC, DBA IXO vs. USPTO

Posted on January 15, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2018-1154 (IPR2016-00783) DYK, TARANTO, STOLL January 10, 2019 Brief summary: Board IPR decision finding RT’s patent invalid for obviousness affirmed. Summary: RealTime’s (RT) appealed Board final written decision (FWD) finding the challenged claims of US 6,597,812 relating to … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC/Genzyme et al. v. Immunex Corp.

Posted on February 20, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

IPR2017-01879 and -01884 (US 8,679,487 B2) February 15, 2018 Brief summary: Sanofi’s IPR petitions against Immunex’s ‘487 patent directed to anti-IL-4R antibodies instituted on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. Sanofi’s previously denied IPR petition found not to prohibit filing of … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Differentiation, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Intellectual Ventures I LLC, et al. v. Motorola Mobility LLC et al.

Posted on September 25, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1795 NEWMAN (C/D), DYK, TARANTO September 13, 2017 Brief summary: DC denial of JMOL to Motorola affirmed with respect to invalidity but reversed as to direct infringement under 35 USC § 271(a) (e.g., “the end user must be … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Infringement, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. et al.

Posted on January 16, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-2067 REYNA, HUGHES, STOLL January 12, 2017 Brief Summary: DC decision finding of direct infringement by physicians and induced infringement (§ 271(b)) by Teva as well as no obviousness affirmed. Summary: Teva et al. (“Teva”) appealed DC finding … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Differentiation, Indefiniteness, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Poly-America, L.P. v. API Industries, Inc.

Posted on October 24, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-1200 PROST, REYNA, HUGHES October 14, 2016 Brief Summary: DC claim construction based on “clear and unequivocal statements” in the specification and during prosecution affirmed. Summary: Poly-America appealed DC claim construction of the term “short seal” in US … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Wi-LAN USA, Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc.

Posted on August 3, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-1256 LOURIE, BRYSON, CHEN August 1, 2016 Brief Summary: DC’s constructions of “specified connection” and “UL connections” as well as its grant of SJ of noninfringement to Apple affirmed. Summary: Wi-LAN appealed DC grant of SJ of noninfringement … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Infringement | Leave a comment

Indacon, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.

Posted on June 13, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-1129 NEWMAN, REYNA, STOLL June 6, 2016 Brief Summary: DC claim constructions based on specification and prosecution history found not to be erroneous and the judgment of noninfringement affirmed. Summary: Indacon appealed DC construction of the terms “alias” … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Howmedica Osteonics Corp., Stryker Ireland Ltd. v. Zimmer, Inc., Wright Medical Technology, Inc., Smith & Nephew, Inc.

Posted on May 16, 2016 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-1232, -1234, -1239 O’MALLEY, PLAGER, WALLACH May 12, 2016 Brief Summary: DC claim construction (“there is a fine line between reading a claim in light of the written description and reading a limitation into the claim from” it), … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation, Doctrine of equivalents, Written description | Leave a comment