Category Archives: Claim Interpretation

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

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 , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

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

Posted in Claim Interpretation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Lightning Ballast II – Judge Lourie Tries to Get to “The Facts of the Matter”

After reading all 88 pages of this very scholarly opinion which left patent law right where it was post-Cybor – no matter how much weight the parties and amici felt stare decisis deserved – I went back and read Judge Lourie’s concurrence. It is mercifully … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Interpretation | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit Reaffirms Cybor Standard in Lightning Ballast Rehearing

On Friday, a narrow majority of the Fed. Cir. sitting en banc, reaffirmed that claim interpretation is a question of law, to be reviewed de novo upon appeal to the Fed. Cir. (A copy of the decision can be found below.) … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Interpretation | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments