Tag Archives: Prosecution History Estoppel

Federal Circuit Finds "Molecular Weight" To Be Insolubly Ambiguous

Please welcome Daniel Shelton, an associate in the Chemical, Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Practice of Foley & Lardner LLP, as a new author for PharmaPatentsBlog. In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Federal Circuit invalidated a number of claims directed to a polymer defined by its “molecular weight” because the term was ambiguous, and … Continue reading this entry

Claim Construction Not Illuminated By Ambiguous Restriction Requirement

In Plantronics, Inc. v. Alph, Inc., the Federal Circuit rejected arguments that the election made in response to the Restriction Requirement limited the scope of the claims in a manner that was not reflected in the claim language, specification, or prosecution history. Although the patent holder prevailed on this issue, this case serves as a … Continue reading this entry

In Uship Federal Circuit Finds Prosecution History Disclaimer In Arguments Against Restriction Requirement

In Uship Intellectual Properties, LLC v. United States, the Federal Circuit upheld the claim construction applied by the Court of Federal Claims when it held that the United States and IBM Corporation did not infringe the claims at issue. Coming on the heels of the Biogen case, this decision provides another warning that any statements … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Finds Prosecution History Disclaimer In Enablement Arguments

In Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, the Federal Circuit upheld a narrow claim interpretation based on prosecution history disclaimer. The court held that the applicants’ arguments against an enablement rejection served to disclaim the broader claim scope sought in the infringement action. This case highlights the risk that any statement made during prosecution can … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Finds District Court Strayed Too Far When Construing Claims

In Advanced Fiber Technologies Trust v. J & L Fiber Services, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s claim construction that relied on extrinsic evidence and was inconsistent with the specification. Although the patent holder ultimately may prevail, a different claim strategy might have avoided the problematic claim construction.… Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Splits Over Claim Construction

In Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the district court’s finding that two of Becton, Dickinson’s retractable syringes infringed Retractable’s patents. The Federal Circuit found that one, but not both, of Becton, Dickinson’s syringes infringed the patents. For many, the conflicting approaches to claim construction espoused by Judge … Continue reading this entry

Federal Circuit Explains Unforseeability Under Festo

In Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Paddock Laboratories, Inc., the Federal Circuit rejected Duramed’s arguments that prosecution history estoppel did not bar application of the doctrine of equivalents under Festo because the equivalent at issue was not foreseeable. In so doing, the Court illuminated the rather narrow applicability of the “unforeseeable” route to rebutting a presumption … Continue reading this entry

Claim Differentiation: The Weakest Link?

The recent Federal Circuit decision in ERBE Elektromedizin GMBH v. Canady Technology LLC serves as a reminder that the doctrine of claim differentiation generally will not be useful to support a claim interpretation that is contradicted by other claim construction tools. The Claims At Issue The technology at issue in ERBE relates to medical devices for argon gas-enhanced electrosurgery. … Continue reading this entry