Federal Circuit Precedential

Category: 06 – June

  • Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC

    The typical meaning of the phrase “consisting essentially of” can be modified by limiting statements made during patent prosecution which demonstrate how the inventor understood the invention.

  • Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc.

    A license used to show objective indicia of nonobviousness does not require a showing of nexus with respect to the specific claims at issue, only to the patent as a whole.  To establish nexus, a particular patent does not need to be the only patent being licensed.

  • United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank N.A.

    When determining whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea for Section 101 analysis, the focus is on the character of the claim as a whole rather than the specification to determine eligibility. 

  • Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp.

    Enablement analysis under Section 112 is distinct from enablement analysis for a prior art reference under Section 102.  Non-working examples may be sufficient to enable a prior art reference as long as undue experimentation would not have been required to disclose the claimed feature.

  • Dolby Lab’ys Licensing Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC

    The AIA does not create an informational right to know the identity of all real parties in interest in an IPR proceeding, such that the PTAB’s refusal to adjudicate this issue constitutes an injury in fact to confer Article III standing.