News & Analysis as of

CAFC Claim Construction

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending July 4, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC, No. 2023-2173 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) June 30, 2025). Opinion by Scarsi, joined by Taranto and Stoll. Eye Therapies owns a patent that claims a method for reducing eye redness...more

MoFo Life Sciences

Is Your Claim Open or Closed? Claim Construction Takes on a New Meaning in Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC

MoFo Life Sciences on

On June 30, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC, reversing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) claim construction of the phrase “consisting...more

Knobbe Martens

An Eye Toward Prosecution History

Knobbe Martens on

EYE THERAPIES, LLC v. SLAYBACK PHARMA LLC - Before Taranto, Stoll and Scarsi (sitting by designation). The patent’s prosecution history required a restrictive interpretation of the term “consisting essentially of.”...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Eye Therapies LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2025)

Patent law in many respects has its own language and idiosyncratic expressions, and one such respect involves so-called "transitional" words or phrases (discussed in greater depth in the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure...more

MoFo Life Sciences

A Tip for Improving Your “Improved” Jepson Claim: Include Written Description Support

MoFo Life Sciences on

The Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in In re: Xencor, Inc.concerning written support for Jepson claims. The decision affirms the decision of the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the USPTO, which held that the...more

Proskauer - The Patent Playbook

Eyes Open to the Past: Federal Circuit Holds Prosecution History Is Claim Construction Evidence

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC provides further insight into the tools available for patent claim construction. The Federal Circuit had previously held that a patent’s...more

Knobbe Martens

Reissue Applications Are Bound by the Scope of the Claims as Written, Not as Intended

Knobbe Martens on

IN RE KOSTIC - Before Stoll, Clevenger, and Cunningham. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. When considering whether a reissue claim broadens the scope of the original patent, the PTAB determines the actual scope...more

Knobbe Martens

No Takebacks: The High Bar for Departing From Patent Lexicography

Knobbe Martens on

ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. MODERNA, INC. - Before Taranto, Chen, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Once the high threshold for lexicography is met, there must be a...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending June 20, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., et al., Nos. 2023-1674, -1701 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) June 16, 2025). Per curiam opinion, before Louri, Reyna, and Hughes. Ancora owns a patent directed to restricting unauthorized use of...more

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Clarifies Nexus Standard For Secondary Consideration Licensing Evidence

A&O Shearman on

On June 16, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) vacated and remanded two final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) that found several claims of Ancora Technologies,...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: An Enabling Anticipatory Prior Art Reference Need Only Enable a Single Embodiment of the Claim

WilmerHale on

Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. MODERNA, INC. [OPINION] (2023-2357, 06/04/2025) (Taranto, Chen, Hughes) - Taranto, J. The Court affirmed the district court’s claim...more

Irwin IP LLP

Seeing Double?  Similar Claim Terms Could Be Trouble  

Irwin IP LLP on

When prosecuting a patent with similar language across various claims make sure your claim terms have different meanings, otherwise, during litigation you may lose the strategic opportunity to keep some claims valid if others...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit: Plans for Future Activity Created a Substantial Risk of Future Infringement

Jones Day on

Restem filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176, directed to stem cells obtained from umbilical cord tissue and isolated through a two-step process to create a specific cell marker expression...more

DLA Piper

What is a “Clear and Unmistakable” Prosecution History Disclaimer?

DLA Piper on

The Federal Circuit’s March 21, 2025 decision in Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed Inc. et al. (No. 2023-2045) and the recent Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Delegated Rehearing Panel decision in SynAffix B.V. v....more

McDermott Will & Emery

X-Ray Vision: Court Sees Through Implicit Claim Construction

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s final determination that challenged patent claims were not unpatentable, finding that the Board’s decision relied on an erroneous...more

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Rejects PTAB’s Implicit And Incorrect Claim Construction Of “Between 1 And 10”

A&O Shearman on

On May 23, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion reversing a final written decision from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) finding the challenged...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: En Banc Federal Circuit Finds Lump Sum Settlement Licenses Insufficient to Support $X Royalty Rate...

WilmerHale on

Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - ECOFACTOR, INC. v. GOOGLE LLC [OPINION] (2023-1101, 5/21/2025) (Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, Stoll, Stark) - Moore, C.J. The en banc Court reversed...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Undetectable Amount of Magnification IS Magnification

This Federal Circuit Opinion analyzes invalidity based on anticipation and obviousness, more specifically based on implicit claim construction of the claim limitation and inherent disclosures....more

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

Broadening on Reissue is Based on the Scope of the Language of the Claims, Not the Original Intention of the Applicant

Takeaways: - Claim construction for determining whether reissue claims are improperly broadened is based on fundamental claim construction cannons and not applicant intentions. - Patent Owners should check patented claims...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending May 16, 2025

Alston & Bird on

The Regents of the University of California, et al. v. The Broad Institute, Inc., et al., Nos. 2022-1594, -1653 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) May 12, 2025). Opinion by Reyna, joined by Hughes and Cunningham....more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

The Narrow Pathway to Patent Eligibility in the Federal Circuit

The last 11 years have taught us much about the Federal Circuit; namely, that a majority of the judges simply do not seem to appreciate software. Given the statements that several have made in opinions, one might be able to...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2025) - Update

Only a few days after the one-year anniversary of hearing oral argument, the Federal Circuit handed down its decision in Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc. on Monday. The opinion reviewed the...more

Knobbe Martens

Hard to Stomach: Things You Say to Prosecute a Patent Can and Will Be Used Against You

Knobbe Martens on

AZURITY PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. ALKEM LABORATORIES LTD. Before Murphy, Moore, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Arguments and amendments made during prosecution of a parent...more

MoFo Life Sciences

In Patent Prosecution, You Have the Right to Remain Silent. Anything You Say Can and Will Be Used Against You in the Court of Law

MoFo Life Sciences on

While a Miranda warning isn’t given prior to starting substantive examination, perhaps it should be. In Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alkem Laboratories, Ltd., a precedential decision issued on April 8, 2025, the Federal...more

Haug Partners LLP

Federal Circuit Affirms Presumption of Separateness in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., C.A....

Haug Partners LLP on

In a formulation claim, if elements are listed separately, does this necessarily entail that those elements are “separate and distinct components”?  This was the question before the district court in Regeneron...more

36 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"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