Cases

PLAGER, Circuit Judge, Dissenting. Because I do not find anywhere in the majority opinion or in the prosecution history that clear and unmistakable evidence of a disclaimer as required by our precedents, I cannot agree with the majority that such a disclaimer was made by Biogen during the prosecution of its application for the '612 patent; I respectfully dissent. The parties do not dispute

MOORE, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Respectfully, I must dissent from the majority opinion on several grounds. I *1076believe that the claims at issue are to a fundamental scientific principle so basic and abstract as to be unpatentable subject matter and therefore I would affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity under § 101.

MOORE, Circuit Judge. In light of our decision in In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed.Cir.2008) (en banc), we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment that these claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dr. Classen’s claims are neither “tied to a particular machine or apparatus” nor do they “transforme ] a particular article into a different state or thing.” Bilski, 545 F.3d at 954. Therefore we <

MEMORANDUM OPINION WILLIAM D. QUARLES, JR., District Judge. Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. (“Classen”) sued Biogen Idee (“Biogen”) and GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) (collectively the “defendants”) for patent infringement. Pending is claim construction. On June 7, 2013, the Court held a claim construction hearing. I. Background1 ' Classen is the

381 F.Supp.2d 452 (2005) CLASSEN IMMUNOTHERAPIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. BIOGEN IDEC, et al., Defendants. No. CIV. WDQ-04-2607. United States District Court, D. Maryland, Northern Division. July 22, 2005. *453 Joseph J. Zito, Zito TLP, Damascus, MD, for Plaintiff. Amanda Page Masselam, David Bryan Bassett, Wilmer Cutler Picke

Case: 23-2045 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 03/21/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ MAQUET CARDIOVASCULAR LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ABIOMED INC., ABIOMED R&D, INC., ABIOMED EUROPE GMBH, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2023-2045 ______________________ Appe

Case: 23-1446 Document: 101 Page: 1 Filed: 09/30/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ FOCUS PRODUCTS GROUP INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ZAHNER DESIGN GROUP, LTD., HOOKLESS SYSTEMS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., SURE FIT HOME PRODUCTS, LLC, SURE FIT HOME DECOR HOLDINGS CORP., SF HOME DECOR, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. KARTRI SALES CO., INC., MARQUIS MILLS,

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge Reyna. Moore, Circuit Judge. Blackbird Tech LLC ("Blackbird") appeals the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware's entry of judgment of noninfringement of claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 7,086,747 ("'747 patent") based on its construction of

Reyna, Circuit Judge. *1347 Iridescent Networks, Inc. sued AT & T Mobility, LLC and Ericsson Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of

Case: 21-1050 Document: 41 Page: 1 Filed: 08/26/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ DATA ENGINE TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2021-1050 ______________________ Appeal from the United S

OPINION Sue L. Robinson, Senior District Judge I. INTRODUCTION This consolidated case arises out of the filing of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDAs”) by defendants Sigmap-harm Laboratories, LLC (“Sigmapharm”); Breckenridge : Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Breckenridge”); Hikma. Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, PLC, and West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corporation (collectively, “Hi

MEMORANDUM OPINION ANDREWS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Presently before me is the issue of claim construction of multiple terms in U.S. Patent No. 5,856,298 (“the ’298 patent”). The ’298 patent generally relates to eryth-ropoietin (“EPO”) isoforms. I have considered the parties’ Joint Claim Construction Brief. (D.I. 104). I held a Markman hearing on September 21, 2016. I have also considered t

STOLL, Circuit Judge. Aylus Networks, Inc. appeals the United States District Court for the Northern District of California’s grant of summary judgment finding that Apple Inc.’s AirPlay feature does not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. RE 44,412. For the reasons below, we affirm. . Background I.

MEMORANDUM GREGORY M. SLEET, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1. INTRODUCTION In this patent infringement action, plaintiff AbbVie Inc.1 (“AbbVie”) alleges that a pharmaceutical product proposed by defendant Hospira, Inc. (“Hospira”) infringes the asserted claims of the patent-in-suit.2 (D.I. 1.) The court held a two-day

TARANTO, Circuit Judge. Ancora Technologies, Inc., owns U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941, which claims methods for verifying that a software program on a computer is not there without authorization, but is licensed to be there. In December 2010, Ancora sued Apple Inc., alleging that products running Apple’s iOS operating system infringed the '941 patent. The United States District Court

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 19-859 (Filed: 22 March 2023) *************************************** E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS, INC., and * E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS, LLC, * * Plaintiffs, * * Claim Construction; Markman Hearing; v.

Case: 19-1749 Document: 87 Page: 1 Filed: 10/13/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ IMMUNEX CORPORATION, Appellant v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, GENZYME CORPORATION, REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Cross-Appellants ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 14-513 (Filed: 30 October 2020*) *************************************** THALES VISIONIX, INC., * * Plaintiff, * * v. * *

MEMORANDUM OPINION WILLIAM D. QUARLES, JR., District Judge. Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. (“Classen”) sued Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Elan”) for infringement of two patents. ECF No. 1 at 1-2. The litigation was stayed while the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) completed a reexamination of the patents. ECF Nos. 179 at 1, 204 at 1. Pending is Classen’s motion to lift the stay on this liti

ORDER HUGHES, Circuit Judge. Deca requested inter partes reexamination of a patent owned by SkyHawke. Sky-Hawke ultimately prevailed, with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding the contested claims not obvious over the cited prior art. SkyHawke appeals, arguing that the Board decision should be affirmed but that the claim const