News & Analysis as of

Patent Prosecution Prosecution History Estoppel Claim Construction

Womble Bond Dickinson

Reminder: “Consisting essentially of” Is U.S. Patent Claim Language Needing Interpretation

Womble Bond Dickinson on

On June 30, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Eye Therapies v. Slayback Pharma in which the court interpreted the transition phrase “consisting essentially of” to be a closed term excluding other...more

Lathrop GPM

Federal Circuit Says Claim Cancellation Can Create Prosecution History Estoppel

Lathrop GPM on

In a July 18 precedential decision in Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a $106 million jury verdict against Medtronic for infringement of a patent...more

BCLP

Federal Circuit Clarifies Limits of Prosecution Disclaimer in Patent Families

BCLP on

In Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed Inc., 131 F.4th 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2025), the Federal Circuit addressed whether the prosecution history of one patent in a patent family can limit the scope of claims in a different patent...more

Jones Day

PTAB Designates Two Decisions Declining Review Under § 325(d) as Informative

Jones Day on

On March 21, 2018 the PTAB issued a press release announcing that two decisions denying review under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) are designated as informative: Kayak Software Corp.v. International Business Machines Corp.,...more

Knobbe Martens

Ottah v. Fiat Chrysler

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Newman, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Summary: General disclosures in the specification and statements that describe the...more

5 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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