News & Analysis as of

Pharmaceutical Industry › CAFC › 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

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

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

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

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

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

Troutman Pepper Locke

CAFC Affirms PTAB’s Decision That Printed Matter Doctrine Can Be Used In Claim Construction

Troutman Pepper Locke on

In an inter partes review proceeding, a challenger cannot raise patent-eligibility as a ground of invalidity. Rather, the invalidity grounds are limited to lack of novelty and obviousness. ...more

9 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:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide