In its appeal from an adverse decision on priority by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in Interference No. 106,115 (directed to CRISPR-mediated gene editing), Junior Party the.
By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Maryellen Noreika in
SIPCO, LLC v. Aruba Networks, LLC et al., Civil Action No. 20-537-MN (D.Del. June 9, 2021), the Court denied Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings on Counts III and IV of Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure after concluding that Defendants failed to show that there are no material issues of fact and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
By way of background, Plaintiff SIPCO is a research, development and technology company that was assigned various patents by its founder, T. David Petite, relating to moving data over wired and wireless networks. On February 13, 2020, SIPCO advised defendant Aruba, a subsidiary of defendant Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, in writing that, it infringed certain SIPCO patents through Aruba’s sale of certain products.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s New Year’s eve opinion in
Ball Metal v. Crown Packaging, though nonprecedential, raises important considerations for pharmaceutical and biologics patents – where patent challengers regularly allege the indefiniteness of “measurement” claim terms that describe pharmacologic or physicochemical properties of the invention. Under
Ball Metal, even if a “measurement” term is found to allow for multiple different measurement methods that can produce different results, indefiniteness may still be avoided if the challenger cannot show that such differences “matter for determining whether or not [the] claim limitation is met by those who might realistically be practicing the other claim limitations.”[i]