Author Archives: Warren Woessner

Eye Therapies v. Slayback Pharma – Fed. Cir. Enhances the Scope of “Consisting Essentially”

In Eye Therapeutics, LLC, v. Slayback Pharma, LLC., Appeal no. 2023-2173, (Fed. Cir., June 30, 2025), a panel of Judges Scarisi, Stoll and Tramto reversed a Board decision that the claims of U.S. Pat. No. 8,293,742 were invalid. Claim 1 … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Interpretation | Leave a comment

Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeis X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.—When does “No” Projection Magnification Mean “No”?

In Sigray, Inc, v. Carl Zeis X-Ray [“Zeiss”], appeal 2023-2211 (Fed. Cir., May 23, 2025), the panel reviewed the Board’s decision in an IPR in which Claims 1-6 of Zeiss patent no. 7,400,704 were held not to be unpatentable over … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Interpretation, Inherency, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Regents of the U. of Cal. v. Broad Inst. – “Just The Facts, Ma’am.”

The central theme in this interference decision involving U.S. Pat. No. 8,697,359 is the amount and type of evidence required to support the conception of an invention. Joe Friday wanted the witness to focus on the facts of the matter, … Continue reading

Posted in Federal Circuit, PTAB, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Regeneron v. Mylan, “It Ain’t Necessarily So.”

Regeneron v. Mylan, appeal nos. 2024-2058, 2024-2147 (Fed. Cir., March 5, 2025) is the most recent appeal in a long line of Hatch-Waxman suits filed by Regeneron to block generic versions of its VEGF antagonist (or “trap”) EYLEA®, that is … Continue reading

Posted in Inherency | Leave a comment