Search
Favorite Blogs
Limitations describing how an apparatus is made can structurally limit the apparatus
Andrew Melick | June 12, 2013
Regents of University of Minnesota v. AGA Medical Corp.
June 3, 2013
Panel: Rader, Wallach, Dyk. Opinion by Dyk.
Summary
Regents of University of Minnesota (“University”) sued AGA Medical for infringement of U.S. Patents 6,077,281 and 6,077,291 directed to medical devices called septal occluders. A claim at issue recites two disks having central membranes, the two disks being “affixed” to each other at the central membranes “to define a conjoint disk.” The accused product was a molded one-piece device. In the district court, the claim was construed as to require that the disks, before being affixed, exist separately as individual disks that are then attached to each other. Since the accused device was a single molded device and was not constructed from two separate disks, the district court entered summary judgment of non-infringement. The CAFC affirmed this construction and the summary judgment of non-infringement.
Another claim at issue was found to be anticipated. The University attempted to use prosecution disclaimer to narrow the claim and avoid anticipation. However, the court rejected the prosecution disclaimer because the prosecution disclaimer was from a parent application and applied to “materially” different claim language.
Tags: AndrewMelick > claim construction > disclaimer
Confusion dogging best mode requirement in its waning days: Is intentional concealment required?
Le-Nhung McLeland | June 5, 2013
Ateliers de la Haute-Garonne, and F2C2 Systems SAS v. Broetje Automation USA Inc. and Broetje Automation GMBH
May 21, 2013
Panel: Newman, Prost, and Reyna. Opinion by Newman. Dissent by Prost.
Summary:
An embodiment with three grooves is disclosed in the specification of the patents-in-suit as a preferred embodiment of an apparatus for dispensing rivets. In his deposition one of the two inventors stated that an odd number of grooves was required to prevent a rivet from rotating on itself in the device as a result of the rivet stem going inside one of the grooves. The district court found that the specification did not “state that an odd number of grooves is better than an even number”, and concluded that the patents “effectively conceal the best mode.” Summary judgment is granted. On appeal the CAFC finds no violation of the best mode requirement. Questions: Is the three-groove embodiment the best mode, or is the belief that an odd number of grooves is required the best mode? Has the best mode been concealed, and does the concealment have to be intentional for the patent to be invalidated?
Read More/続きを読む
Even Without a Lexicography One Term May Have More Than One Meaning
Bernadette McGann | May 29, 2013
Title: Even Without a Lexicography One Term May Have More Than One Meaning
Author Name: Bernadette K. McGann
Case Name: Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Amino Chemicals Ltd.
Key words: Claim Construction, Intrinsic Evidence, Prosecution History
Decision Date: May 20, 2013
CAFC Panel and opinion author: Newman, Bryson and Reyna. Opinion by Reyna. Dissenting opinion by Bryson
Summary
The claim in dispute recites a process of preparing a piperidine derivative compound that included providing a substantially pure regioisomer of a specific formula. The District Court construed the meaning of “substantially pure” in relation to an intermediate compound to mean 98% purity, which is the same meaning as “substantially pure” when in relation to the piperidine derivative end product. The CAFC reversed the “one construction throughout the patent” rule, adopted by the District Court.
Tags: claim construction > intrinsic evidence > prosecution history
Public use bar inappropriate when participants in clinical trials do not discern specifics of new product
Sung-Hoon Kim | May 22, 2013
Dey, L.P. v. Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
May 20, 2013
Panel: Bryson, O’Malley, and Newman. Opinion by Bryson. Dissent by Newman.
Summary:
The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the holding of the District Court that some of Dey’s patents were invalid because a Sunovion’s clinical trial, where Sunovion tested its own product, constituted an invalidating public use. The Federal Circuit determined that although some of test samples were lost and clinical trial was not perfectly confidential, Sunovion’s clinical trial is not an invalidating public use as long as participants do not recognize the specifics of a new drug.
연방지방법원 뉴욕 남부지원(U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York)은 Sunovion의 임상실험 (clinical trial)이 공용 (public use)에 해당된다고 판단하여, Dey의 특허가 무효 (invalid)라도 판결하였다.
이에 불복하여, 원고는 연방항소법원 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit)에 상고 (appeal)하였다. 연방항소법원은 임상실험 도중 test sample이 분실되었거나 임상실험이 완벽히 비공개로 진행되지 않았더라도 실험참가자가 신약에 대한 자세한 정보를 모른다면Sunovion의 임상실험은 공용에 해당되지 않는다고 판결하였다.
Tags: anticipation > clinical trial > public use bar > summary judgment > Sung-HoonKim > third party use