Category Archives: Claim Interpretation

Pacing Technologies v. Garmin – D&D Explained

Posted on February 20, 2015 by Warren Woessner

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 Federal Circuit, intellectual property, ip, Pacing Technologies v. Garmin, Warren Woessner | Leave a comment

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

Posted on January 21, 2015 by Warren Woessner

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 District Court, Federal Circuit, Justice Alito, Justice Thomas, Nautilus v. Biosig, s. 112(2), Supreme Court, Tera v. Sandoz, Vederi v. Google | Leave a comment

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

Posted on January 21, 2015 by Warren Woessner

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 Cybor Corp., District Court, Federal Circuit, Patent Law, s. 112(2), Sandoz, Supreme Court, Teva, Warren Woessner | Leave a comment

101 Rejections Under the Guidelines: Mayo and Myriad “Go Viral”

Posted on September 4, 2014 by Warren Woessner

This is a guest post from Hans Sauer, Deputy General Counsel, Intellectual Property for BIO. “Recently, I set out to find real-world examples of recent rejections under the USPTO Guidance, to do my own sampling rather than rely on reported … Continue reading →