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

The Fed. Cir. has been pretty hard on defendants alleging disclaimer of claim scope in recent decisions but that was not the case here. But what caught my attention is that Judge Prost spent four pages of his opinion on … 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