Tag: claim construction
-
Optis Cellular Technology v. Apple Inc.: Federal Circuit Orders New Trial on Infringement and Damages Due to Unanimity Violation and Improper Evidence
The Federal Circuit’s June 16, 2025, decision in Optis Cellular Technology, LLC v. Apple Inc., Nos. 2022-1904, 2022-1925, vacates a $300 million damages judgment in a high-stakes standard-essential patent (SEP) case and mandates a new trial on both infringement and damages. The court found that the Eastern District of Texas violated Apple’s constitutional right to…
-
Ancora v. Roku: When Patent Licenses Become Evidence of Nonobviousness
In the June 16, 2025 decision of Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded two inter partes review (IPR) decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that had found claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941—owned by Ancora Technologies, Inc.—to be unpatentable as obvious. While the Federal Circuit affirmed…
-
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc.: Express Definitions in Patent Specs Can Limit Claim Scope
In Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Moderna, Inc., No. 23-2357 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed a claim construction that doomed Alnylam’s infringement case against Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. The decision reinforces the primacy of clear definitional language in a patent’s specification—even when it narrows claim scope beyond what a patentee may have intended.…
-
Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.: Inherent Anticipation Requires Full Scope of the Claim
In a decision clarifying the boundaries between claim construction and factual findings of inherency, the Federal Circuit in Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc., No. 23-2211 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2025), reversed the PTAB’s determination that certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,400,704 were not anticipated by the prior art. The court concluded…
-
In re Kostic: Broadened Reissue Claims Rejected Due to Statutory Bar
In In re Kostic, the Federal Circuit recently reinforced the statutory bar against broadening reissue applications filed beyond the two-year limit, emphasizing that claims must be construed based on their actual language rather than an inventor’s subjective intent. Background:Appellants Kostic and Vandevelde sought reissue of U.S. Patent No. 8,494,950, covering methods for buying and selling…
-
Fintiv v. PayPal: Payment Handler Terms Indefinite Under § 112(f)
In Fintiv, Inc. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., No. 23-2312 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Western District of Texas’s ruling that the asserted patent claims were invalid as indefinite. The decision underscores the court’s continued enforcement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 for software-related terms that fail to recite sufficient…
-
Azurity Pharmaceuticals v. Alkem Labs: Prosecution Disclaimer and “Consisting Of” Language Bar Infringement Finding
In Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd., No. 23-1977 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the District of Delaware’s ruling that Alkem’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) product did not infringe Azurity’s U.S. Patent No. 10,959,948 (“’948 patent”) due to a clear and unmistakable prosecution disclaimer of propylene glycol. Background Azurity’s…
-
Wash World v. Belanger: Federal Circuit Vacates Convoyed-Sales Damages
The Federal Circuit issued a split ruling in Wash World Inc. v. Belanger Inc., affirming the district court’s judgment of infringement but vacating the lost profits damages award due to improper inclusion of convoyed sales. The case presents key takeaways on claim construction waiver, convoyed sales damages, and preserving post-trial remedies, with important implications for…
-
Maquet v. Abiomed: Scope of Prosecution Disclaimer
On March 21, 2025, the Federal Circuit vacated a district court judgment of non-infringement and remanded the case for further proceedings in Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed Inc. (No. 23-2045). The opinion focuses on the claim construction of U.S. Patent No. 10,238,783 (the “’783 patent”), specifically the proper application of the prosecution disclaimer doctrine and…
-
Regeneron v. Amgen: Patent Infringement and Biologic Formulations
On March 14, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amgen Inc., affirming the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction sought by Regeneron. This ruling is significant in the realm of the biologic pharmaceutical industry, as it centers on claim construction and…