Category Archives: Claim Differentiation

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

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

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 Docket No. 2019-1100 PROST, WALLACH, HUGHES January 30, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC determination of means-plus-function construction affirmed but reversed as to whether sufficient structure was disclosed.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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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