Claim Drafting News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Panel times and speakers subject to change.

The United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Amgen, Inc. v. Sanofi et al. The Court held, as many feared they would, that the 26 antibody examples and detailed instructions for generating additional antibodies within the genus—which covered some 400 pages and included a CD Rom of the x-ray crystallography coordinates of Amgen’s “anchor” (or lead) antibodies 21B12 (Repatha) and…

In SolarEdge Techs., Inc. v. Fronius Int'l GMBH, No. IPR2022-00849 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2022), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") denied institution of inter partes review challenging U.S.

In Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc., No. 21-1864 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 11, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") reversed the district court's holding that the claim terms...

Wednesday, January 20, 2021 As a non-precedential decision on claim construction,  Horizon Pharma, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc., may not be relevant to any other case, but it caught my attention as an example of the perils of claim drafting. Claim language mirroring language in the specification that the examiner considered without difficulty during prosecution was held indefinite as being “nonsensical.” The Claim Language At Issue The claim language at issue is found in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,220,698, which is partially reproduced below with emphasis added: 1....