CAFC reverses noninfringement finding in Ventana case
On Dec. 29, the CAFC overturned a lower court's finding that rival BioGenex Laboratories Inc. had not infringed on a patent held by Ventana Medical Systems Inc.
This was a "claim construction" case, with the sole issue the meaning of the word --dispensing.-- The district court required "direct" dispensing FROM a reagent bottle ONTO a microscope slide. The district court found a disclaimer of "sip and spit" dispensing.
Yes, Phillips v. AWH, 415 F.3d 1303, is cited. Through Phillips, the CAFC cites to Innova v. Safari, for a bedrock proposition of patent law which negates arguments made by Quillen and Webster and others about patent grant rate: the claims define the invention.
The CAFC gets into prosecution disclaimer and cites the Invitrogen case. There is much discussion of the effect of statements made in continuation applications (eg, Microsoft v. Multi-Tech).
This was a "claim construction" case, with the sole issue the meaning of the word --dispensing.-- The district court required "direct" dispensing FROM a reagent bottle ONTO a microscope slide. The district court found a disclaimer of "sip and spit" dispensing.
Yes, Phillips v. AWH, 415 F.3d 1303, is cited. Through Phillips, the CAFC cites to Innova v. Safari, for a bedrock proposition of patent law which negates arguments made by Quillen and Webster and others about patent grant rate: the claims define the invention.
The CAFC gets into prosecution disclaimer and cites the Invitrogen case. There is much discussion of the effect of statements made in continuation applications (eg, Microsoft v. Multi-Tech).
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 12:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home