Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Quo Vadis mRNA Vaccine Technology? The State of the IP Lawsuits
- Moderna Settles Patent Litigation with Arbutus et al.
- USPTO and DOJ Statement of Interest in Collision Communications: Another Thumb on the Scale in Favor of NPE Patent Plaintiffs
- Oasis Tooling, Inc. v. Siemens Industry Software Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2026)
- Why AI Will Not Take Over the World
about
Category: Claim Construction
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last Friday, the Federal Circuit reversed a District Court’s finding on summary judgment that eight generic drug manufacturers did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,054,482 (the ‘482 patent), and affirmed the District Court’s construction of two disputed claim limitations. Plaintiffs-Appellants Warner Lambert Co., Pfizer Inc., and Gödecke Aktiengesellschaft (Warner…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Supreme Court’s recent KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. decision is stunning in the amount of dicta it contains (and confusing dicta at that). The Court succumbed to imprecise language (albeit not quite gobbledygook) even when addressing the merits of the case, particularly its reasoning for reversing…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The U.S. Supreme Court today denied without comment Amgen’s petition for certiorari to review the Federal Circuit’s reversal (for the second time) of the District Court’s construction of the term "therapeutically effective amount" in its patent infringement suit against Sanofi-Aventis over erythropoietin (EPO). This lawsuit has been reviewed…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Since the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc. that no aspect of a district court’s claim construction was entitled to any deference, courts, commentators, and other critics have disagreed with the Federal Circuit. Today, Amgen has enlisted the aid of the Supreme…
-
Court Finds That HDI’s Glucometer Does Not Infringe Roche Patent By Robert Dailey A District Court in Indianapolis ruled last week that Home Diagnostics’ TrueTrack® and TrackEASE® blood glucose monitoring systems do not infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,366,609, owned by Roche. The lawsuit had pitted Roche, one of the leaders in the medical…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In an appeal from a District Court decision granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. (Caraco), the Federal Circuit concluded that the District Court did not err in construing the term "about 1:5" or in finding no literal infringement or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents,…
-
By Kevin Noonan — Illustrating once again distinctions between permanent and preliminary injunctions in its jurisprudence, the Federal Circuit used a combination of its patent-specific precedent and regional circuit law to affirm a preliminary injunction against only one of three co-defendants. In Abbott Lab. v. Andrx Pharm., Inc., the Court held that one…
-
By Mark Chael — In an opinion by Circuit Judges Prost and Dyk handed down on December 29, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona had incorrectly construed the claim term "dispensing" in U.S. Patent No. 6,352,861 (the '861 patent)…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In an appeal from a District Court judgment of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,714,520; 5,731,355; and 5,731,356, the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court's claim construction and finding of literal infringement, and affirmed the District Court's finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The patents at issue…
-
By Kevin Noonan — The peripatetic case of Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. has once again been reviewed by the Federal Circuit (decided August 3, 2006). Once again the CAFC has failed to lay the several issues in the case to rest. While affirming infringement and validity of two of the…
Patent Docs 