Category Archives: Claim Interpretation

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

Pacing Technologies v. Garmin – D&D Explained

In this decision—No. 2014-1396 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 18, 2015)—the court affirmed a grant of summary judgment (a copy can be found at the end of this post) that Garmin’s exercise products do not infringe the claims of Pacing’s US Pat. … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Interpretation, Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

TEVA v. SANDOZ – THE DISSENT AND THE ZONE OF UNCERTAINTY

In Teva v. Sandoz, decided yesterday by a 7-2 decision of the S. Ct., the lengthy dissent by Justices Alito and Thomas invoked the dreaded “zone of uncertainty” – a dangerous bar of shifting legal sands that defendants should not … Continue reading

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

Teva v. Sandoz: “Just the facts, Ma’am”

Effectively reversing Cybor Corp., which flatly stated that a lower court’s claim construction is a question of law which is to be reviewed de novo by the Fed. Cir., yesterday the Supreme Court held 7-2 that questions of fact resolved … Continue reading

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