News & Analysis as of

Written Descriptions Claim Construction Appeals

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

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

McDermott Will & Emery

“Payment Handler”: A Nonce Term Without Instructions

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that a software term was a “nonce” term that invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (i.e., a means-plus-function claim element). The Court...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

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: Xencor, Inc.

In re: Xencor, Inc., Appeal No. 2024-1870 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2025) Our case of the week is an appeal from a decision of the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, concerning Xencor’s patent application...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Complex or Not Written Description Is Evaluated Against Claims

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s ruling of invalidity for lack of written description, finding that the district court erred in its analysis of written description because patents...more

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending January 10, 2025

Alston & Bird on

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Torrent Pharma Inc., et al., Nos. 2023-2218, -2220, -2221 (Fed. Cir. (D. Del.) Jan. 10, 2025). Opinion by Lourie, joined by Prost and Reyna. The FDA approved a New Drug Application from...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Third Quarter 2024 Federal Circuit Law Update

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

Since serving as a Federal Circuit clerk, Michael Hawes has monitored that court's precedential opinions and prepares a deeply outlined index by subject matter (invalidity, infringement, claim construction, etc.) of relevant...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Is SCOTUS Looking to Change the Enablement Requirement for Patents?

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi (No. 21-757) on Monday, March 27, 2023. The highly contentious question before the high court focuses what an applicant must show to meet the enablement...more

McDermott Will & Emery

A Maze-Like Path and Laundry List Don’t Provide Written Description

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) decision that there was insufficient written description in the asserted priority applications to support a genus claim because of...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Swing and a Miss: Failed Interferences Don’t Affect Later Ones

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s (Board) interference decision finding that priority belonged to the junior party based on sufficiently corroborated reduction to...more

Knobbe Martens

Niazi’s Patent Survives on Appeal: Federal Circuit Reverses In Part Lower Court’s Decision

Knobbe Martens on

On April 11, 2022, Niazi Licensing Corporation (“Niazi”) succeeded in part in its appeal at the Federal Circuit in Niazi Licensing Corporation v. St. Jude Medical S.C. Inc. Niazi’s lawsuit alleged that St. Jude Medical S.C....more

Knobbe Martens

“Pliable” Language Results in “Resilient” Patent Claims

Knobbe Martens on

NIAZI LICENSING CORPORATION v. ST. JUDE MEDICAL S.C., INC. Before Taranto, Bryson, and Stoll. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Summary: Providing examples in the claim language and...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Federal Circuit Won’t Rescue Parachute Patent

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) decision that claims to a ballistic parachute were obvious over the prior art based on knowledge attributable to artisans and...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Count On It, Plural Term Means More Than One

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) patentability decisions after determining that the Board did not err in construing multiple terms within the challenged patents....more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - March 2022 #2

In re: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and In re: Hyundai Motor America, Appeal Nos. 2022-108, -109 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2022) - In the most recent of multiple mandamus rulings issued by the Federal Circuit in relation to...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Rounding Error: Intrinsic Evidence Informs Plain and Ordinary Meaning

McDermott Will & Emery on

Vacating a stipulated infringement judgment based on an incorrect claim construction, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that it is improper to isolate claim language from the intrinsic evidence when...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - December 2021 #2

AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Appeal No. 2021-1729 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2021) - Our Case of the Week again focuses on numerical values in claims. Last week we addressed a case involving whether there was...more

Haug Partners LLP

The Federal Circuit Says Prosecution History Was Insufficient to Overcome the Claims and Written Description for Claim...

Haug Partners LLP on

Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 2019-1527, (Fed. Cir. Aug 27, 2020) - In an appeal from the District of Delaware, the Federal Circuit (Judges Moore, Plager, and Wallach) vacated and remanded the district court’s judgment...more

Knobbe Martens

Specification’s Narrow Description of the Invention Results in Disavowal of Claim Scope

Knobbe Martens on

TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. v. ITC - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Wallach. Appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission. Summary: Consistent description in the specification of a particular embodiment as the...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Broad Genus of HCV Compounds Wasn’t Enabled or Described

McDermott Will & Emery on

In a case relating to compounds for the treatment of the Hepatitis C virus (HCV), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) for lack of enablement...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - October 2019

Knobbe Martens on

The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction - In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Arkema France, Appeal Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...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

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - August 2019

Knobbe Martens on

Mere Potential for Future Appeal Does Not Prevent Triggering Estoppel of Inter Partes Reexamination When Party Fails to Seek Relief in the First Instance - In Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1591, -1592,...more

35 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