Fed Circ contests PTAB over single or plural meaning in microfluidic device patent

Judges partially overturn decision that ABS had failed to prove claims in Cytonome patent were invalid | PTAB and appeals court differ in interpretation of whether claims language had single or plural meaning.

Already registered?

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk

More on this story

Americas

Axonics v Medtronic: Fed Circ addresses PTAB ‘errors’

17 August 2023 A recent precedential case highlights the thorny issue of what constitutes a fair response to new claim constructions following an institution, says Blair Jacobs of McKool Smith.

Americas

Medtronic faces patent review revival as Fed Cir faults PTAB

11 July 2023 Precedential decision marks blow for medical device maker after earlier win | PTAB criticised for “fundamental legal error” and “narrow definition”.

More features

AIPPI: Personalised medicine tests the limits in patent law

Ropes & Gray loses 21-attorney group to join rival on growth spree

How 'Boehringer' sets preliminary relief threshold for generics

‘Whose trademark law is AI based on exactly?’: Key questions from Marques

The Quintara decision: Defining trade secrets in federal cases

To disclose or not: Pharma patents face new AI reality

Trade secrets go global: How brand owners face a high-stakes battlefront

Killing the golden goose of US drug innovation (Part II): Drug pricing myths

Fed Circ contests PTAB over single or plural meaning in microfluidic device patent

More on this story

Editor's picks

Editor's picks

More features