|
|
|
12.30.2015
|
www.mckoolsmith.com
| View in web browser
|
 |
Claim Directed to Treating Females With Irritable Bowel Syndrome Was Obvious
Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc.
The patent at issue related to a method for treating certain female patients having a certain type of irritable bowel syndrome. The court affirmed the district court’s holding that the claims were invalid as being obvious. Read More>>
|
Claims Directed to “Quality Control” Cannot Be Infringed Under 35 U.S.C. §271(g), Because §271(g) Requires Making a Product Using a Patented Process
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
This case involved claims against two defendants, Teva and Amphastar. The patent claims at issue involved a method for “quality control release testing” of an anticoagulant drug called enoxaparin. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Court Remanded Finding that Petitioner Failed to Prove Claims Obvious Because It Was Unclear Why the PTAB Refused to Consider a Prior Art Brochure
Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc.
The court vacated and remanded the PTAB’s finding that the petitioner Ariosa failed to prove that the patent claims at issue were obvious. Read More>>
|
Court Resolved All Remaining Claim Construction and Damages Issues in the Akamai v. Limelight Case in Akamai’s Favor
Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.
Following the en banc court’s reversal of the JMOL finding no infringement, the court resolved all residual issues in the appeal and cross-appeal in this opinion. Three issues remained to be decided, all raised by Limelight. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Court Reverses PTAB Finding that Claims Were Not Obvious and Affirms Procedural Finding that Reply Expert Declaration Was Properly Admitted
Belden, Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC
In an IPR proceeding brought by Berk-Tek, the PTAB held that asserted claims 1-4 were invalid as being obvious and held that the validity of claims 5-6 would be confirmed. Read More>>
|
Negative Claim Limitations May Have Written Description Support Where the Specification Describes Alternative Features
Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc.
In an inter partes reexamination proceeding, the patentee amended its claims to add a negative limitation: “the chip selects . . . are DDR chip selects that are not CAS, RAS, or bank address signals.” Read More>>
|
 |
 |
No Literal or Equivalents Infringement Where the Accused Attachment Was Not at a “Proximate End”
Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC v. X-Body Equipment, Inc.
The claim at issue related to a container packing system which required that a certain piston-and-cylinder unit be connected to the “proximate end” of the base and packer. Read More>>
|
PTAB Construction for Claim Language “Is Connected” Was Incorrect, Because the Term “Is” Has a Plain Meaning Requiring a Present Tense Construction Only
Straight Path IP Group, Inc. v. Sipnet EU S.R.O.
The court remanded the PTAB’s finding that the claims at issue were anticipated and obvious when using a claim construction that the court found was erroneous. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
PTO Did Not Err When it Issued a Certificate of Correction For a Figure Showing the Chemical Structure of a Compound
Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc.
The district court held that the claims of four of Cubist’s patents were invalid as being obvious and held that the claims of the fifth of Cubist’s patents were not invalid and were infringed. The Federal Circuit affirmed. Read More>>
|
Without any Expression of Manifest Exclusion, Claim Term Would Not be Limited to the System Disclosed in the Specification
Imaginal Systematic, LLC v. Leggett &Platt, Inc.
The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment of non-infringement. On appeal, the patentee, Imaginal, argued that the district court erred in construing the term “vision guidance system” in the phrase “without the use of a vision guidance system.” Read More>>
|
 |
|
