News & Analysis as of

Claim Construction Patent Applications

Irwin IP LLP

Arguments in Prosecution History Limit Design Patents Too 

Irwin IP LLP on

The USPTO must reject a patent application if the applicant’s claim covers what the prior art already disclosed, and patent applicants may respond to such rejections with arguments that what they claimed was different. ...more

Knobbe Martens

Cancellation of a Closely Related Claim During Prosecution Can Trigger Prosecution History Estoppel

Knobbe Martens on

COLIBRI HEART VALVE LLC v. MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC - Before Taranto, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Federal Circuit reversed a $106 million...more

Knobbe Martens

Not So Cozy: Prosecution History Disclaimer for Design Patents

Knobbe Martens on

TOP BRAND LLC v. COZY COMFORT CO. LLC - Before Dyk, Reyna, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Summary: Arguments presented during prosecution of a design-patent application...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Don’t get too comfy: Prosecution disclaimer also applies to design patents

Concluding that the principles of prosecution history disclaimer apply to design patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law and entry of a jury...more

Dickinson Wright

2025 Patent Filing Costs Rise: USPTO Fee Update and Response Strategies

Dickinson Wright on

In January 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) implemented a broad set of fee increases and structural adjustments intended to address rising operational costs and encourage more efficient patent...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Lexicography: Clear And Unequivocal

This Federal Circuit opinion analyzes lexicography in the context of claim construction. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals owns U.S. Patent Nos. 11,246,933 (parent) and 11,382,979 (child). These patents relate to biodegradable...more

A&O Shearman

The Federal Circuit Rejects PTAB’s Use Of Traditional Construction Of “Consisting Essentially Of”

A&O Shearman on

On June 30, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a decision by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) and remanded the case for further proceedings using a narrower construction of the...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

Lathrop GPM

Claim Construction Matters: Federal Circuit Decision Highlights the Significance of Lexicography in Patent Drafting

Lathrop GPM on

A precedential ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 4 affirmed that Moderna’s mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine SPIKEVAX® does not infringe two patents owned by Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, upholding a...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

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Method of Treatment Claim’s Limiting Preamble Must Satisfy the Written Description Requirement

On March 13, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the case of In Re: Xencor, Inc. In this Appeal from the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (ARP), with regard to...more

Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.

Broadening Your (Patent) Protection

In the fast-paced world of innovation, inventors sometimes realize that their patents do not fully protect their inventions until after the patent issues. If the patent family has an application still pending at the patent...more

Holland & Knight LLP

Federal Circuit: Machine Learning Patents Fail Section 101 Patent Eligibility Challenge

Holland & Knight LLP on

The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. (April 18, 2025) has garnered a lot of attention. This is not surprising: It hits on hot topics such as machine learning, artificial intelligence...more

Miller Canfield

Jepson Claims No Substitute for Written Description in Patents

Miller Canfield on

Federal Circuit Holds That the Preamble of Jepson-Style Claims Must Be Supported by an Adequate Written Description - U.S. patent claims have a preamble, and, in most cases, the preamble is not limiting. Jepson-style...more

Lathrop GPM

Significant Federal Circuit Decision Redefines Prior Art Requirements

Lathrop GPM on

Last week a remarkably interesting Federal Circuit case was decided concerning whether an asserted reference was properly shown to qualify as prior art in the rejection of a pending patent application. The pending application...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: In re: Riggs

In re: Riggs, Appeal No. 2022-1945 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2025) Our Case of the Week explores the power of an examiner to request a rehearing after the Board has entered a decision on an application. The case also relates to...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

The Impact of Prosecution Length on Infringement Outcomes in Patent Litigation

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

This article continues our analysis of over 89,000 patents to determine how the number of office actions to allowance during prosecution impacts litigation outcomes. Last month we discussed how prosecution length impacts...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

The Impact of Prosecution Length on Invalidity Outcomes in Patent Litigation

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

This Article analyzes over 89,000 patents litigated over a twenty-year period to determine how the number of office actions to allowance during prosecution impacts rates of invalidity during subsequent litigation. Many...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | January 2025

Knobbe Martens on

In Honeywell International Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A., Appeal No. 23-1354, the Federal Circuit held that under the obviousness standard of 35 U.S.C. § 103, the motivation to modify prior art does not need to be the same as...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Avoiding the Provisional Application Filing Pitfall of Narrowed Claim Interpretation

Provisional patent applications are popular in the U.S. for the various advantages they may provide applicants, including lower filing costs, less restrictive United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) filing...more

Smart & Biggar

Canadian patent law 2024: a year in review

Smart & Biggar on

2024 was an active year in Canadian patent law, with the Federal Court issuing several decisions on the merits regarding invalidity and/or infringement. The courts also considered issues of the regulation of patent agents,...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - January 2025

Honeywell International Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A., Appeal Nos. 2023-1354, -1384, -1407 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 2, 2025) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit reversed an inter partes review finding of the Patent...more

Knobbe Martens

Deleted Definition “Highly Significant” for Claim Construction

Knobbe Martens on

DDR HOLDINGS, LLC V. PRICELINE.COM LLC, BOOKING.COM B.V. - Before Chen, Mayer, and Cunningham.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Delaware. Summary: Deleting a definition provided in...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Federal Circuit Clarifies Test for Exception to Increasingly Rare Interference Proceedings

Speck v. Bates, No. 2023-1147 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2024) addressed two issues, (1) whether courts should apply a one-way test or a two-way test to determine if pre-critical claims materially differ from post-critical claims,...more

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

Four Pitfalls to Understand in Reissues

Takeaways: -Not all patent errors are correctible via Reissue. - Restriction practice applies to Reissue applications. 1. Non-Elected Invention Recapture: A reissue application cannot add claims directed to a...more

115 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 5

"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