Stick to the Fax: Conflicting Statements Made During Prosecution Lead to Indefiniteness | McDermott Will & Emery jdsupra.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from jdsupra.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi
, Appeal No. 2020-1074 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2021)
In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s JMOL ruling that asserted claims of two related pharmaceutical patents were invalid because their shared specification did not enable the full scope of the claims. The patents were directed to synthetic antibodies used in high cholesterol treatments that operate by binding to specified amino acids (or “residues”) of enzyme PCSK9, thereby blocking PCSK9 from binding to LDL cholesterol receptors (“LDLR”) and permitting those receptors to remove LDL cholesterol from the bloodstream.
The claims at issue contained dual functional limitations, requiring that a claimed antibody both bind to at least one or two of numerous listed PCSK9 residues (i.e., in ranges from one or two residues to all of them), and that the antibodies block the PCSK9/LDLR interaction. Appellee Sanofi contended that because there are millions of antibody
Thursday, February 18, 2021
In deciding whether use of the term “passive link” to define a connection between a computer terminal and a fax machine rendered a patent claim indefinite, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of invalidity based on conflicting statements made by the patent owner during prosecution.
Infinity Computer Products, Inc. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc., Case No. 20-1189 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2021) (Prost, C.J.)
Infinity owns a patent directed to providing a circuit for interfacing a personal computer with a facsimile machine to enable the facsimile to be used as a scanner or a printer for a personal computer. The patent seeks to accomplish all of the objectives of a scanner or a printer in a simple, straightforward manner through the use of a circuit of highly simplified design and low cost. The patent claims recite that this functionality is accomplished “through a bi-directional direct connection
Anything You Say … — Terms with Inconsistent Definitions Are Indefinite | Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP jdsupra.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from jdsupra.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On February 10, 2021, the Federal Circuit held that the term “computer” was indefinite because the prosecution history included arguments distinguishing prior art references that relied on conflicting understandings of the term.
Infinity Computer Prods., Inc. v. Oki Data Am., Inc., No. 2020-1189 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2021).
Infinity Computer Products, Inc. (“Infinity”) sued Oki Data Americas, Inc. (“Oki”) for infringement of U.S. Patent 6,894,811 (the “’811 patent”) and three other patents that share a common specification with the ’811 patent (collectively, the “asserted patents”). The asserted patents covered systems and methods for using a fax machine as a printer and scanner for a computer. The asserted claims recited that a “passive link” was used to connect the computer to the fax machine.