Oral Arguments and the Federal Circuit
Further to this previous article suggestion about waiver, I found these quotes from Federal Circuit case law to be interesting. Some of the cases concern the Federal Circuit noting that the specification is often intrinsic evidence in patent cases and how that affects the waiver determination. We reject Magseis contention that Seabed waived certain arguments [ ]
Chief Judge Michel (ret.) once commented that waiver is not an absolute rule and lots of times the court allows people to make new arguments on appeal: An interesting article might research when Federal Circuit judges have ignored waiver and when they have enforced it. The research might include which judges are most likely to [ ]
To invoke argument-based estoppel, the prosecution history must evince a clear and unmistakable surrender of subject matter. Pharmacia Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 170 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed.Cir.1999).
In an unusual turn of events, the Federal Circuit will not be sitting for oral arguments this August. I imagine there will be lots of work being done at the court just no oral arguments. I don t remember a year when the court did not sit in August so, this might be a [ ]
Anticipation requires that a single reference describe the claimed invention with sufficient precision and detail to establish that the subject matter existed in the prior art. Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (emphasis added). For this reason, it has long been understood that ambiguous references do not, as [ ]
We have, however, declined to apply the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer where the alleged disavowal of claim scope is ambiguous. For instance, in Northern Telecom Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Company, 215 F.3d 1281, 1293-95, 55 USPQ2d 1065, 1074-75 (Fed.Cir.2000), the accused infringer relied on remarks made by the inventors to overcome a rejection as the [ ]
Claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meanings as understood by a skilled artisan, when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In particular, claim scope can be narrowed when the patentee disavows the full scope [ ]