News & Analysis as of

Prosecution History Estoppel Claim Construction Patents

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

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

Goodwin

ITC 337 Quarterly Insider Q2 2020

Goodwin on

Goodwin’s 337 Quarterly Insider remains the premiere publicly available source for keeping up to date on all meaningful decisions coming out of the Commission. Please find below Goodwin’s insights on the months of April, May,...more

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

The Goods on IP - October 2019: Curver Luxembourg v. Home Expressions: Words Can Matter in a Design Patent

Claim construction for a design patent is mainly focused on the drawings, which show the ornamental design that is protected by the patent. But the Federal Circuit recently identified one situation where the drawings weren’t...more

McDermott Will & Emery

“Tangential Relation” Exception Saves Patentee’s Reliance on DOE

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing an infringement determination under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the “tangential relation” exception to the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel...more

Jones Day

ITC Rejects Sofa Design Patent Infringement On Prosecution History Estoppel Grounds

Jones Day on

While design patents follow many of the same rules as utility patents, the application of those rules in determining design patent infringement can be less than straightforward. But a recent Initial Determination by ALJ...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - June 2019

Knobbe Martens on

One-year Clock for Filing IPR Petition Applies to Litigants and Parties that Become Privies of the Litigant Prior to Institution. In Power Integrations, Inc v. Semiconductor Components, Appeal No. 2018-1607, the Federal...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

Jones Day

The Commission Doesn’t Rubber Stamp Even Highly Technical Claim Constructions

Jones Day on

On February 14, 2018, the Commission affirmed ALJ Pender’s initial determination of non-infringement but based on modified grounds related to the construction of the claim term “single-molecule sequencing.” In re Certain...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

Foley & Lardner LLP

Prosecution History Informs Claim Meaning Even Without Unmistakable Disclaimer

Foley & Lardner LLP on

Although non-precedential, the Federal Circuit decision in Aptalis Pharmatech, Inc. v. Apotex Inc. is worth a read to see how the court “tiptoes” the “fine line between reading a claim in light of the specification, and...more

11 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