Case Name: UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2023)(Circuit Judges Moore, Chen, and Stoll presiding; Opinion by Stoll, J.) (Appeal from D. Del.,.
Novartis Pharms Corp v Accord Healthcare, Inc | Robins Kaplan LLP jdsupra.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from jdsupra.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Indefiniteness under U.S. patent law is a failure to satisfy the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), which reads: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims
particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention (emphasis added). The meaning of the statute was most recently explicated by the Supreme Court in
Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014), which established the standard that the inherent imprecision of language cannot create ambiguity . . . so great that it creates a zone of uncertainty around the patent claims. In practice, this led the Court to require reasonable certainty in claim language, a standard the patent claims at issue failed to satisfy in the Federal Circuit s recent decision in