Claim definiteness is increasingly playing a more critical role in claim construction, considering the scrutiny afforded petitioners in inter-partes examination proceedings (IPRs) challenging validity of patents before the USPTO. Even though indefiniteness is not a basis to institute an IPR, claim indefiniteness can cause claim construction confusion. The trend to […]

On February 11, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) affirmed a district court’s judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) that Amgen’s asserted claims to binding affinity of antibodies were invalid for lack of enablement, holding that undue experimentation would be required to practice the […]

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuti) in St. Jude Medical, LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLC held that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim must be considered in light of the specification.

On November 13, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) sustaining the rejection of the Examiner's final rejection of various claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 in an application by Google. In clarifying the difference between the doctrines of "waiver" and "forfeiture," the CAFC held that Google had forfeited the arguments put forth on appeal because those arguments were not presented to the Examiner or PTAB. Therefore, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB's decision.