Category Archives: Claim Interpretation

Vanda v. Roxane Labs. – Are Two Natural Laws Better Than One?

As you will recall, in Prometheus v. Mayo, the Supreme Court held that a claim reciting a natural law had to have other non-conventional steps to pass muster under s. 101. The natural law in Mayo was the correlation between … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Interpretation, Federal Court, Hatch-Waxman, Litigation Issues, Obviousness, Section 101 | 2 Comments

Teva v. Sandoz – “Strange Brew” Boils Over

On June 18, 2015, a divided Fed. Cir. panel reaffirmed that the key claim of a Teva patent, U.S. Pat. No. 5,800,808, was invalid as indefinite, although the Fed. Cir. had previously been reversed twice by the Supreme Court – … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Interpretation | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Skinmedica, Inc. and, i.e., Disclaimer

I was reading through the decision handed down on August 13, 2013 in Appeal No. 2012-1560, Skinmedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., and barely staying awake. (A copy is available at the end of this post.) The panel interpreted the claims … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Interpretation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Brilliant Instruments v. GuideTech – Doctrine of Equivalents on Review

Contributed by Theresa Stadheim of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner In Brilliant Instruments, Inc., v. Guidetech, LLC, Appeal no. 2012-1018 (Fed. Cir. February 20, 2013) (a copy can be found at the end of this post), a panel of the Federal … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Interpretation, Doctrine of Equivalents | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment