Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION v.HEC PHARM CO., LTD. [OPINION](2021-1070,January 3, 2021 ) (MOORE, LINN and O'MALLEY)
O'Malley, J. Affirming district court decision that the asserted patent claims do not fail the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). There was no clear error in the district court's holding that the relevant dosage limitation was adequately described. "Blaze marks" are not necessary where the claimed species is expressly described in the specification, which in this case, for example, included the claimed dosage range in a description of a prophetic human clinical trial. With respect to the challenged negative claim limitation, the Court noted that it previously had resisted imposition of heightened written description standards for negative limitations. A negative limitation must be accompanied by an original disclosure which conveys to a person of ordinary skill that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. The district court did not clearly err by crediting expert testimony and finding that defendant failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the relevant negative limitation was not adequately described.
INTEL CORPORATION v.QUALCOMM INCORPORATED [OPINION](2020-1664,December 28, 2021 ) (PROST,TARANTO , and HUGHES)
Prost, J. Affirming decision of Patent Trial and Appeal Board as to originally challenged claims, but vacating as to substitute claims. On the threshold question of jurisdiction, the Court found that, although petitioner was not sued for infringement, petitioner had standing because patent holder had mapped the challenged claims to petitioner's products in a prior suit against a third party, patent holder was not offering a covenant not to sue, and petitioner continued to sell the relevant products. On the merits of the originally challenged claims, the Board was found to have not committed error in its claim construction of the term "radio frequency input signal," because the Board's claim construction was found to prevent the word "input" from being redundant in the claim, to comport with the claim's tripartite structure, and to reflect the specification's repeated use of the disputed phrase to reference incoming carrier signals before down-conversion. The Court found, with respect to the originally challenged claims, that the Board satisfactorily explained why a skilled artisan would not have combined the relevant prior art references. The Board was found to have concluded that negating a key benefit of one of the prior art references during the majority of operation would have outweighed any reason to combine. Finally, the Court found that a skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the prior art references relating to the substitute claims, because the Board's decision rejecting that rationale was not supported by substantial evidence.
INTEL CORPORATION v.QUALCOMM INCORPORATED [OPINION](2020-1828, 2020-1867,December 28, 2021 ) (PROST,TARANTO , and HUGHES)
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
Tel: 6175266000
Fax: 6175265000
E-mail: laura.bulcher@wilmerhale.com
URL: www.wilmerhale.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2022 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source