Claim Construction Archives - Page 3 of 3

September 9, 2015

The Word “will” can Indicate a Patent Promise, not an Expectation

AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2015 FCA 158 - The FCA acknowledged that the word “will” often refers to an expectation or goal rather than a promise, but still held that the FC did not err in finding that a promise was made when reading the patent as a whole from the eyes of a skilled reader.

September 2, 2015

In Situ Reaction Cannot Avoid AstraZeneca’s Product Claim

AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc, 2015 FC 322 - Claim 1 was worded general enough to capture Apotex’s subcoating layer even though Apotex’s subcoating layer was generated by an in situ chemical reaction, a process that the patentee had not contemplated.

August 20, 2015

USPTO Proposes AIA Rule Changes

USPTO Proposes AIA Rule Changes - Proposes to affirm the "broadest reasonable interpretation standard" in IPR proceedings and other changes.

August 17, 2015

IPR Proceedings in the US retain the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard for Claim Construction & Strict Claim Amendment Requirements

Microsoft Corporation v Proxyconn, Inc, - The “broadest reasonable interpretation standard” (“BRI”) standard is the standard for claim construction in Inter Partes Review IPR proceedings and newly substituted claims must be demonstrated to be patentable over the prior art of record.

March 24, 2015

Mylan-Tadalafil does not Infringe Eli Lilly’s Formulation Patent in NOC Proceeding

Eli Lilly Inc v Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC, 2015 FC 178 - Mylan did not infringe the ‘948 Patent because the Mylan’s tadalafil compound did not have the claimed particle size distribution and the formulation did not contain the claimed concentration of hydrophilic binder. The Court rejected two purposive arguments by Eli Lilly in favour of a more literal reading of the patent.

February 25, 2015

Federal Court Upholds Gap between Claim Construction and PM(NOC) Product Specificity Requirement for Combination Drugs

Eli Lilly Canada v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 152 - This decision clearly states that a higher level of specificity is required to adhere to the Regulations than is required for an element to be claimed as a matter of claim construction.

February 23, 2015

United States Supreme Court Clarifies that Claim Construction can Involve Subsidiary Factual Disputes that are Reviewed on a Clear Error Standard

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, et al v Sandoz, Inc, et al, 574 US __ (2015) - United States Supreme Court clarified that claim construction can involve subsidiary factual disputes that are reviewed on a clear error standard, while the ultimate question of claim construction is reviewed de novo.

July 31, 2014

Federal Court Prohibited Issuance of a NOC for Generic Version of Lumigan

Allergan Inc v Apotex Inc, 2014 FC 567 - In terms of claim construction, this case shows the tension between construing claims based solely on the wording of the claims versus peering beyond the wording of the claims to distill an underlying invention.

July 3, 2013

FC Construes Claim, Holds “a” Means “one”

Zero Spill Systems (Int’l) Inc. v. 614248 Alberta Ltd. – 2013 FC 616 This action concerns allegations of infringement of two Canadian Patents No. 2,258,064 (064 […]