![]() ![]() ![]() The appellant’s rehearing petition would have ordinarily been due on Groundhog Day, February 2, but HEC requested and was granted a 21-day delay and that meant that Novartis’s response would not be due until after Judge O’Malley’s retirement. Chief Judge Moore wrote in dissent - arguing that the majority had been way too lenient.īy January 2022, Judge O’Malley had already announced her plans to retire from the judiciary in early March 2022. That original CAFed decision was penned by Judge O’Malley and joined by Judge Linn. The appellate procedure in this case is strange and important to its current status: The district court sided with Novartis (infringed + not-invalid) and the Federal Circuit affirmed on appeal in a January 2022 decision. Chris Holman, Federal Circuit Flips “Negative Claim Limitation” Decision after Change in Panel Composition, Patently-O (June 23, 2022).Novartis has no petitioned for en banc rehearing. However, the Novartis court explained that its express-or-inherent holding here applies regardless of whether claim limitations are expressed in positive or negative form. One quirk here is that the court identifies the particular limitation as a “negative claim limitation” and there are wide ranging policy views on how those limitations should be treated. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013 (Fed. 112? In its most recent statement, the Federal Circuit finds failure of written description unless the invention is either expressly or inherently disclosed in the original specification. Does the claim violate the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. A new limitation was added to the claims during prosecution that is not found expressly in the specification, but would be expected by someone of skill in the art. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |