Category Archives: Claim Interpretation

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

Posted on July 13, 2025 by Warren Woessner

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”?

Posted on June 10, 2025 by Warren Woessner

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

Fed. Cir. Panel Holds that Judge Dyk Erred in Construction of Antibody Claims

Posted on August 31, 2020 by Warren Woessner

Recently, in the appeal of a noninfringement opinion by Judge Dyk, riding circuit in D. Del., a three Judge panel of Judges Moore, Plager and Wallach held that Judge Dyk erred in his overly narrow construction of the claim terms … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Interpretation | Tagged noninfringement | Leave a comment

PTO Proposes to Change Claim Construction Standard Used by PTAB

Posted on May 8, 2018 by Warren Woessner

On May 9th, the USPTO released a short “Notice of proposed rulemaking” entitled “Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.” In brief the Notice proposes to replace the broadest … Continue reading →