Claim Construction
A construction analysis is simply an exercise in interpreting the language of the patent in order to give it sense or meaning. More typically, it is an exercise in interpreting the language of the claims of the patent.
May 2, 2023
Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2320, 2021-2376: Typically patent drafters omit phrases like “at least one” from patent claims to improve readability, but a recent court decision may reverse the trend.
June 30, 2022
2022 FCA 118: The appeal court saw no reason to interfere with a trial court decision that favoured MEG Energy in its ongoing patent dispute with inventor Jason Swist.
March 16, 2022
Patent drafters should take the time to consider the “why” behind drafting choices. There is no “right” or “wrong” way here, only the need to be mindful.
February 24, 2022
The US CAFC ruled that an examiner is a "person of ordinary skill in the art" and is owed an appropriate level of deference.
March 26, 2021
2021 FC 85: The Federal Court upheld the validity of all claims, but found that PetroChina was not infringing Maoz Betser-Zilevitch's patent for an SAGD.
February 16, 2021
PAB 1556: Canada’s Patent Appeal Board reconsidered Mr. Choueifaty’s patent application for a computer-implemented method of managing portfolio assets.
February 1, 2021
2021 FCA 7: The FCA narrowly interpreted section 53.1 of the Patent Act, refusing to look at a corresponding US application that was not named by number.
September 23, 2020
2020 FC 837: A recent decision spells the end to the problem-solution approach, which has long been used to block patent applications for software.
September 10, 2020
Fed. Cir. 2019-1622: The CAFC found the same preamble created different limitations for different patents, limiting one patent but not the other.
June 18, 2020
In a patent infringement case between two major ice skate manufacturers, the Federal Court clarified s. 53.1 and the admissibility of prosecution history.
March 9, 2020
2020 FCA 30; 2020 FCA 31 – Janssen and Celltrion will return to court in June after the FCA overturned a lower court decision regarding a Remicade patent.
December 19, 2019
Fed. Cir. 2018-2087 - Plastic Omnium was unsuccessful in proving patent infringement because the patents used a "special definition" of the word "parison".
October 28, 2019
2019 FC 1233 – In a dispute over flax seeds, Canada's Federal Court says foreign prosecution history may be admissible under the new s. 53.1 of the Patent Act.
October 11, 2019
CAFC 2018-1763 – In fiercely dissented decision, a top US court has invalidated an automotive patent, further extending the reach of the controversial §101.
September 20, 2019
CAFC 2018-2207 – The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that “wherein” clauses in patent claims can be limiting if they are material to patentability.
December 18, 2018
2018 FCA 172 – FCA affirms FC’s analysis on sufficient disclosure but quashes claim construction analysis.
December 12, 2017
2017 FC 774 - The FC granted Pfizer's order pursuant to Section 6 of the PM(NOC) Regulations, prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a NOC to Apotex, with respect to a Canadian patent The FC found, on a balance of probabilities, that Apotex’s allegations of obviousness, inutility, non-infringement, overpromising, anticipation and double patenting were not justified.
November 7, 2017
2016 FCA 267 - Apotex unsuccessfully sought to show that the FCA had erred in another decision by not following the SCC's decision in Whirlpool. Apotex also unsuccessfully argued that the FC had erred by finding the tadalafil patent to have sufficient disclosure.
September 19, 2017
2016 FC 857 - The FC granted Gilead’s application for an order prohibiting the Minister of Health from issuing a Notice of Compliance to Apotex in respect of its Notice of Allegation until the expiry of Gilead’s Canadian patent.
August 8, 2017
2017 FC 6 - MediaTube brought allegations of infringement against Bell over one of its IT patents, asserting that Bell had infringed the patent with Bell’s IPTV services. The FC deemed the patent to be valid, but not infringed. Costs were decided in Bell’s favour and elevated to reflect the punitive damages claimed by MediaTube and the weak argument they had put forth.