Federal Circuit Summary for Week Ending April 28, 2023
Canopy Growth Corp. v. GW Pharma Ltd., No. 2022-1603 (April 24, 2023) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 10,870,632
- Words of a claim are generally given their meaning in the context of the claim and the whole patent document; the specification particularly, but also the prosecution history, informs the determination of claim meaning in context.
Leica Microsys., Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of Mich., No. 2022-1445 (April 24, 2023) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 7,277,169
- To find that a patented claim is obvious in an inter partes review, an adequate rationale for combining the purported references must be shown and supported by evidence.
Apple Inc. v. UUSI, LLC, Nos. 2021-1035, 2021-1036, 2021-1057, 2021-1058 (April 25, 2023) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 5,796,183
When an argument is not supported by the evidence relied upon, the argument fails.
In re Nicira, Inc., No. 2022-1297 (April 25, 2023) (nonprecedential); Appl. Ser. No. 14/815,950
- The use of “a” or “an” in a claim generally means “one or more” for purposes of claim construction.
- In a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is the combination of references that renders a claim obvious, not each reference in isolation and not whether one reference may be wholly incorporated into another.
Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, No. 2022-1043 (April 27, 2023) (nonprecedential); Patent No. 9,184,920
- Arguments not presented during inter partes review cannot be relied on during appeal and are forfeited.
The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. ITC, Nos. 2020-1965, 2021-1829 (April 27, 2023) (nonprecedential); Patent Nos. 6,741,052; 8,587,404; and 7,755,223
- Based on the record at hand, correct claim construction of a term was the term’s plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a skilled artisan in the context of the patent, instead of the administrative law judge’s construction.
- Even though a patent may show and/or describe specific embodiments, the claims should not be confined to those embodiments.