April 5, 2013

Federal Circuit Decisions for Week Ending February 1, 2013

Allergan, Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., et al., No. 2012-1040, -1054 (January 28, 2013) (nonprecedential) (3-0) Patent No. 5,688,819

Key points:

  • An applicant can be his or her own lexicographer when defining a chemical formula that is a critical claim term.
  • The testimony of an expert witness may be required for invalidity under § 103 when a case is sufficiently complex to fall beyond the grasp of the ordinary layperson.

In re EMC Corp., et al., Misc. Dkt. No. 2013-142 (January 29, 2013) (nonprecedential)

Key points:

  • A motion to stay proceedings should be filed with a motion to transfer venue because in the interest of preserving judicial resources, the disposition of a motion to transfer venue should take top priority in the handling of a case.
  • Motions to transfer venue are decided based on the situation that existed when the suit was instituted. Thus, a motion to transfer venue may properly be decided based on benefits of judicial economy that existed when the suit was instituted, even if such benefits are later nullified due to dismissal of one or more of the parties joined in the suit.

Related Team:

Mitchel Jones